http://www.andrewrobb.com.au RSS feeds for Andrew Robb MP - Federal Member for Goldstein 60 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1507/Clean-Energy-Bank-Has-No-Coalition-Investment-Mandate.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1507 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1507&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1507/Clean-Energy-Bank-Has-No-Coalition-Investment-Mandate.aspx CLEAN ENERGY BANK HAS NO COALITION INVESTMENT MANDATE The Coalition today registers its strong opposition to the formal investment mandate issued by the Gillard government for the spending of $10 billion of borrowed money by the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC).   “The CEFC is yet another example of poor public policy from this government which has the very real potential of resulting in the waste of billions of taxpayers’ dollars, all borrowed money,” Shadow Finance Minister Andrew Robb said.   “We will abolish this entity through whatever means should we be fortunate enough to form government as this is a total indulgence, a sop to the Greens that will come at taxpayers’ expense.   “The fact that the purpose of the CEFC is to provide a substantial funding lifeline for clean energy projects that cannot secure finance elsewhere highlights the level of risk involved in these so-called investments,” Mr Robb said.   What’s more the “benchmark return” set by the government, for a portfolio of high- risk ventures, is the meagre average of the government bond rate.   Mr Robb said Labor was “lining up the ducks” so money could be shovelled out the door between 1 July and the federal election.   “This is a very desperate government which will use any means to throw money at preferred constituencies before the election. It will be all borrowed money and will add to Labor’s already record net debt levels of $165 billion.   “The most responsible thing for the CEFC board to do would be to desist from entering into any formal financing agreements or releasing funds prior to the election, given the Coalition’s clear intent to abolish the entity,” Mr Robb said.    Andrew Robb Wed, 24 Apr 2013 06:02:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1507 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1506/Luke-Malpass--New-Zealand-shows-Swan-how-to-bring-about-a-fiscal-recovery.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1506 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1506&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1506/Luke-Malpass--New-Zealand-shows-Swan-how-to-bring-about-a-fiscal-recovery.aspx Please find attached an article from today's Australian Financial Review by Luke Malpass. Andrew Robb Wed, 24 Apr 2013 01:25:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1506 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1505/Joint-Media-Release--Coalition-commitment-on-surplus-and-AAA-rating-clear.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1505 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1505&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1505/Joint-Media-Release--Coalition-commitment-on-surplus-and-AAA-rating-clear.aspx THE HON JOE HOCKEY MP Shadow Treasurer THE HON ANDREW ROBB AO MP Shadow Minister for Finance, Deregulation and Debt Reduction           COALITION COMMITMENT ON SURPLUS AND AAA RATING CLEAR Standard & Poor's has warned in today’s Australian newspaper that Australia's AAA credit rating will come under threat if Labor does not show a commitment to eliminating the budget deficit. The Coalition’s commitment to returning the Budget to a real surplus in a timely fashion and retaining Australia’s AAA rating is paramount.   The difference between the Labor Party and the Coalition on this issue could not be more profound.   The current position of the Labor Party, as articulated by both Wayne Swan and Penny Wong in recent days, is to deliver deficits as far as the eye can see. This is despite Julia Gillard, Wayne Swan and Penny Wong promising on over 650 occasions that they would deliver a Budget surplus this financial year.   Labor has put Australia's AAA credit rating at risk by not showing a clear commitment to eliminating the budget deficit and paying down debt. Under the previous Labor government, Australia’s credit rating was downgraded by Moody’s and S&P in 1986 and 1989. The downgrade came at a time when federal government net debt as a share of GDP was around or lower than its current level. In contrast, the Coalition won back the AAA rating from these major rating agencies with its fiscal discipline, consecutive surpluses and paying off of $96 billion of Labor debt. The Howard Government delivered ten surpluses in our last eleven budgets. By contrast you have to go back to 1989 to find a Labor surplus.  Only a Coalition Government will institute the policies necessary to return the Budget to a real surplus, and to start paying down Labor’s over $260 billion of gross debt. Any other policy is simply fiscally reckless and would further compromise Australia’s national interest.  Andrew Robb Tue, 23 Apr 2013 23:47:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1505 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1502/John-Kehoe--Swans-spending-spree-denudes-healthy-revenue-tree.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1502 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1502&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1502/John-Kehoe--Swans-spending-spree-denudes-healthy-revenue-tree.aspx Please find attached below a piece by John Kehoe in the Australian Financial Review (10/4/2013) Andrew Robb Tue, 09 Apr 2013 23:30:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1502 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1498/Record-Debt-is-Labors-Achilles-Heel.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1498 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1498&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1498/Record-Debt-is-Labors-Achilles-Heel.aspx RECORD DEBT IS LABOR’S ACHILLES HEEL   Claims by the Gillard government that Labor saved Australia from the global financial crisis (GFC) and that the resulting record debt levels are nothing to worry about are myths.   "I would assert that both the government's profligate and wasteful response to the GFC, and its failure to take seriously its rapidly accelerating public debt levels, are creating very real vulnerabilities which will have long-term negative consequences for jobs and growth," Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction, Andrew Robb, will tell a Committee for Economic Development Event of Australia (CEDA) event in Melbourne today.   Mr Robb says for too long Labor has used the GFC almost half a decade ago, with its principal impact on the northern hemisphere, as an excuse to justify taking net debt from zero with $70 billion in net assets, to the current record level of $168 billion, with its $7 billion plus annual interest payment bill.   "Labor splurged $87 billion on stimulus in response to the events of September and October of 2008 with some 40 per cent still being spent as late as 2010-11 and 2011-12. Australia had come out the other side by the time much of the money was wasted," Mr Robb said.   "In Australia we started in a very strong position and the automatic stabilisers kicked in, the exchange rate dropped from 90c to 60c US which resulted in Australia's largest ever trade surplus. In addition the RBA acted swiftly with interest rates falling 4.25 per cent which put money straight into people's pockets."   Mr Robb said beyond the first $10 billion tranche of stimulus, which the Coalition supported, the government grossly overreacted and should have moderated its approach.   "Now we have a situation where Labor avoids talking about the resulting debt hangover at all costs other than to make deceptive and largely meaningless comparisons to the world's cot case economies. The fact our debt levels are where they are despite the mining boom and the highest terms of trade in 150 years highlights the extent of Labor's economic mismanagement.   "The size and growth of public debt is Labor's Achilles heel and perhaps Australia's greatest vulnerability. This debt brings enormous opportunity cost, limits our options and leaves us increasingly exposed to further unforseen events," Mr Robb said.  Andrew Robb Wed, 03 Apr 2013 03:56:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1498 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1499/Address-to-the-Committee-for-Economic-Development-of-Australia-CEDA.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1499 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1499&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1499/Address-to-the-Committee-for-Economic-Development-of-Australia-CEDA.aspx Address to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA) Wednesday, 3 April 2013 To dismiss debt is to leave us vulnerable   I would like to tackle two myths today – firstly, the myth that the government’s fiscal stimulus saved us from the global financial crisis (GFC); and secondly the myth that Australia’s public debt levels are nothing to worry about. On the contrary, I would assert that both the government’s profligate and wasteful response to the GFC, and its failure to take seriously our rapidly accelerating public debt levels, are creating very real vulnerabilities which will have long term negative consequences for jobs and growth. Of course, as always, the government’s response will be to accuse me of talking down the economy.  Well I suggest it’s not good enough to just keep shooting the messenger, rather they should start taking responsibility for the fiscal and regulatory mess they are creating. For too long this government has used the GFC as an excuse for its wasteful spending, new and increased taxes, substantial debt build-up and nanny state re-regulation. Australia should be in a far better position given the circumstances we have been blessed with, notwithstanding the GFC. Let’s remember, it is now nearly half a decade since the peak of the financial crisis, and even then its principal impact was on the northern hemisphere. Since then Europe has continued to struggle, though Germany and others in Europe are back in surplus, while the United States is now responding to massive discoveries of cheap gas and oil, and a low US dollar. During this period Australia has been blessed with the highest terms of trade in 150 years, leading to massive resource projects, the envy of the world. Today Australia’s terms of trade remain around 15 per cent higher than in the final year of the Howard government, but you wouldn’t know it. We have continued to be the beneficiaries of 7-9 per cent growth of the Chinese economy. China is now by far our largest export market with the value of those exports growing from $8.8 billion in 2001-02 to $82.5 billion in 2011-12.   Yet the government has posted the four biggest budget deficits in our nation’s history, with a fifth set to follow. Federal government debt has gone from zero, with $70 billion in net assets, to net debt of $168 billion with annual interest payments exceeding $7 billion, while gross debt now stands at $267 billion. If spending levels had returned to the pre-stimulus trend Australia’s budget could, and should, have been back in surplus last year, much less this and subsequent years.  In fact the firm, Macroeconomics, argues that the budget should be in surplus by $15 billion, or one per cent of GDP, at this point in the economic cycle.   If several European countries can get back to surplus, there is absolutely no excuse for Australia. Before the global recession, monetary policy, in the form of interest rates was typically used by developed countries to increase or discourage consumer and business spending, as required. Government spending, or fiscal policy, was primarily focussed on incentives, savings and funding government services. Following the financial crisis, lowering interest rates to stimulate spending quickly ceased to be an option for many OECD countries because their interest rates reached nearly zero, while the monetary transmission mechanism was slowed and blunted because many households in those countries have fixed mortgage rates. Partly for this reason, and partly to support financial systems that had been inadequately supervised and come to grief, many northern hemisphere governments were forced to massively increase public spending to soften the impact of the recession. Rapid increases in public debt and deficits resulted. The Rudd Government mimicked this high spending northern hemisphere solution and failed to see the alternative Australian solution. Unlike the northern hemisphere, Australia entered the global financial crisis five years ago without a sub-prime fuelled housing bubble, with a properly regulated financial sector, with no government debt, with a $20 billion surplus, with $70 billion in net assets, a record low four per cent unemployment, a strong domestic pipeline of projects and demand from China for our energy and resources which took our terms of trade to 150 year highs. Alternative solutions to those adopted in the northern hemisphere were possible and far more appropriate in Australia. In Australia, the automatic economic stabilisers kicked in. The exchange rate dropped from 90c to the US dollar to 60c to the US dollar. This proved a massive aid to exports, prompting Australia’s largest ever trade surplus in the first quarter of 2009. Unlike the northern hemisphere, lower interest rates were able to work to significantly stimulate spending in Australia. The prevalence of variable mortgage rates in Australia, rather than the overseas fixed mortgage rates, meant that lower interest rates flowed straight through to people’s pockets. The progressive reduction of interest rates by 4.25 per cent saw immediate and very significant injections of cash into millions of households. Combined with long-standing, effective banking regulations and a very strong mining sector, both in the lead up to and during the down-turn, these measures, in combination with some of the first $10 billion fiscal stimulus, which was backed by the Coalition, ensured Australia had a soft landing. Yet, despite the emerging balance of trade data, and the very powerful impact of interest rate reductions, the government refused to adjust course or moderate its response.  Labor’s philosophical predisposition to borrow and spend and then inject government at the centre of everything came to the fore, as it deployed the third largest stimulus package in the OECD. Much of the subsequent $77 billion of stimulus money in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 was an unnecessary over-reaction which saw debt and spending expand rapidly, putting strong upward pressure on interest rates. In fact, the bulk of the money was spent when the immediate crisis was well and truly over, contributing to the Reserve Bank putting the brakes on higher interest rates.  Perversely, the government continued to stimulate the economy by spending borrowed money, including $31 billion of the $77 billion still being spent over 2010-11 and 2011-12. Yet, our Treasurer, Wayne Swan, has repeatedly claimed that the government’s $87 billion stimulus package ‘saved’ Australia from the GFC.  Mr Swan goes further and claims that Treasury modelling shows that 200,000 jobs, and billions in extra tax revenue, were saved. Remarkably, these claims are made despite Treasury never releasing any modelling of the stimulus package, apart from a short Treasury note outlining their forecast methodology. Subsequent academic analysis of this methodology has found it seriously wanting, and the claims about jobs and tax revenue saved to be totally misleading.  In particular, the academic critique finds that the modelling, based on this methodology, seriously underestimated the extent of leakage of Labor’s second, massive stimulus package spending to overseas (where it effectively became a stimulus to other countries’ economies rather that our own). Furthermore, the methodology overlooked the issue of domestic crowding out, as substantial discretionary spending continued even after the economy was recovering solidly, and also overlooked the costs of repaying the many tens of billions of dollars of debt run up, while underestimating the private savings response. Alternative modelling in a peer reviewed analysis by John Humphreys (ANU Agenda: A Journal of Policy Analysis & Reform, Vol. 19, No 2, 2012) which incorporates more realistic assumptions regarding these key channels shows that the impact of Labor’s second stimulus package on jobs and growth would have been far smaller, and in the longer term resulting in a loss of over 30,000 jobs. This is consistent with a number of studies by other academics including modelling by McKibbin and Stoeckel (2009), which showed the stimulus providing an initial boost, but then leading to a net drag on the economy, with a negative multiplier after the first year. These findings are consistent with the Coalition’s position on the appropriate approach to dealing with the financial circumstances of September and October 2008, namely support for the automatic exchange rate and interest rate stabilisers, and for the government’s first $10.4 billion stimulus package to deal with the initial crisis of confidence, followed by serious concern over the sheer size and need for the subsequent $77 billion of hand-outs and spending. So, far from saving Australia from the GFC, the fiscal stimulus has proven to be the catalyst for unprecedented and continuing levels of government spending, financed in large part by rapidly growing debt. This brings me to the second myth constantly asserted by the government, namely that Australia’s public debt levels are nothing to worry about. The fact that discussion of debt is studiously avoided by this government is probably as strong a sign as any that the size and growth of Australia’s public debt is understood by Labor to be its greatest Achilles heel, and Australia’s greatest vulnerability. Labor’s only response is to use public debt comparisons with countries in Europe and the US in an attempt to allay fears about Australia’s debt and deficit blow-outs. Needless to say, Labor never compares Australia’s performance with those of developed, commodity-exporting countries with balance sheets in the black, such as Chile, Norway and Finland. Labor never mentions that back in 2007-08, the aggregate of the federal government and state government’s actually had no net debt, and, in fact, the Federal government had $70 billion net assets.  These factors materially contributed to our soft landing following the GFC.  Now our total net public debt across state and federal governments is more like 22 per cent of GDP, or well over $300 billion and growing rapidly, despite the resources boom and terms of trade reaching 150 year highs. Just last week when sections of the media highlighted the debt problem, Labor responded by widely circulating a misleading graph comparing our net government debt to 22 other countries, including many of Europe’s cot cases. What the graph didn’t say was that the 10 per cent figure cited for Australia was for the federal government only, and for the general government sector only. For many of the other countries listed the debt levels were for both central government and other tiers of government – the equivalent of our states.  And in Australia’s case if we include the debt not only of the states and territories but also of public non-financial corporations, the resulting total public net debt figure is currently more than twice the level used by Labor in its chart. Nor did Labor explain how selective it was being in its selection in the countries it included. Why, for example, does the graph omit various commodity-exporting countries which I mentioned earlier like Chile – where net debt is effectively zero – or Norway, where net debt is massively negative (to the tune of around 170 per cent of GDP)? Why did Labor choose to include San Marino – not a country normally thought of as a key point of comparison for Australia – but not Sweden which, without the benefit of a record mining boom and despite being close to the European epicentre of the GFC, has managed to retain negative net debt of around 17 per cent of GDP, unchanged from its pre-crisis 2007 level? And what the graph couldn’t show, of course, is that if Labor can take net debt from minus $70 billion to a plus $168 billion in five years when our terms of trade are a 150 year high, where would debt be after another three years of a Labor government. Despite its track record, Labor now claims net debt will be paid off by 2020-21, even though it simultaneously forecasts it will still be $138 billion in 2015-16, just five years earlier.  Not surprisingly the target keeps getting pushed out from 2018-19, 2019-20 to 2020-21.  It is on the never never.  Like the pub with the sign out the front promising ‘free beer tomorrow’. Labor never mentions that if the structural budget problem isn’t tackled, where long term spending commitments massively exceed long term expected revenue, then Australia could end up with a debt crisis at some point in the not too distant future. And these problems can emerge quickly.  For example, in 2007 Ireland had a similar level of public debt to Australia’s current debt to GDP ratio, and just six years later their debt is over 100 per cent of GDP.  As respected economist, Saul Eslake observed recently when discussing the structural deficit problem, and I quote, “I can’t think of any crises where the lights went from green to amber – they typically went from green to red without any warning at all – that is you could go from ‘normal to crisis quite suddenly’”. As Tony Abbott observed last week “My fear, and the growing fear of the Australian public, is that the government will try to solve its problems by increasing your problems.  We have a Prime Minister that is mortgaging your future to secure her future”. The problem with record levels of debt is that increasingly options are closed off.  As anyone who has run a business will know, up to a point you control and make good use of debt.  However, beyond a certain level – perhaps 30 per cent debt for many businesses – the debt starts to control you. It is no different for a country.  With Federal government net debt reaching $168 billion, $7 billion a year is already going on interest payments rather than being available to fund infrastructure, education, health and other government spending priorities. What’s more, Australia’s public debt levels traditionally haven’t needed to rise nearly as high as in many other developed economies before becoming problematic, in view of Australia’s long-standing reliance on overseas capital to fund investment. As ratings agency Standard & Poor’s recently observed, this reliance on foreign capital means that a sudden change of heart by foreign lenders could trigger a rapid drop in the dollar, an abrupt capital outflow and higher interest rates.  S&P noted that the recent surge in foreign holders of government bonds, now running at about 70 per cent, was more likely to be suddenly reversed than more traditional direct investments in sectors such as mining. Consistent with this, it is worth remembering that when, under a previous Labor government,  Australia’s credit rating was downgraded twice by Moody’s and S&P in 1986 and 1989, federal government net debt as a share of GDP was around or lower than its current level. So a shift to a surplus, and a start to paying down the debt, would clearly be a prudent move that would see Australia much less exposed to the vagaries of capital markets. And we should pay heed to the warning from Moody’s Investors Service that Australia’s coveted AAA credit rating is dependent on the federal government keeping debt under control. No doubt, the view of rating agencies is also influenced by the record of Federal Labor governments having increased net debt in every year of office since 1990. In short, Australia is being put in an increasingly vulnerable position by excessive and wasteful spending, and Labor’s record of financial management. The Coalition has been sounding the alarm for several years now about the structural deficit - the key indicator of whether a government is living within its means.  Structural deficits are spending commitments made during boom times that cannot be sustained when things taper off. Recent analysis undertaken for the Minerals Council of Australia by Macroeconomics put the budget’s structural deficit at $66 billion in 2011-12, with the problem enduring “as far as the eye can see”, until at least 2025-26.  If correct, this implies a growing debt burden for a further decade or more. The Business Council of Australia warns of a $60 billion budget black hole over the forward estimates alone, while beyond this period the Australian Financial Review estimates unfunded spending promises by the government of around $120 billion for things like the NDIS, dental care and major defence acquisitions. The evidence continues to mount; this government has a spending problem, not the “woe is me” revenue problem it bemoans. Revenue continues to grow steadily, it just doesn’t keep up with Labor’s inflated revenue forecasts and excessive spending. The latest monthly financial statements show that the government raised $202.4 billion in the financial year through to January (2013) compared to  $188 billion at the same time last year, an eight per cent increase. Sadly, the government has played every trick in the book to disguise and avoid confronting the structural problems now entrenched in the budget. The release of a 2010 paper in Treasury’s Economic Roundup on Australia’s vulnerable structural deficit position, written by a number of Treasury economists, was clearly not appreciated by the Treasurer.  Needless to say such analysis has not been repeated by the Treasury, or if it has then publication has been strictly prohibited. Given the significance of such analysis, this lack of transparency is unforgivable. What is more, when the government talks about their budget savings they list as savings tax increases, the removal of announced but not yet introduced tax concessions and the failure to cut taxes.   So you find the flood levy, the decision not to cut company tax, and the decision to defer an increase in the superannuation cap for certain Australians, all listed as savings, along with Labor’s other 26 new or increased taxes. In fact, about half of the savings Labor has claimed in budgets and mid-year reviews over the past few years have actually been tax increases – and in the most recent mid-year review last October, this fraction was higher still at over 80 per cent. The deception continues with accounting tricks and byshifting spending “off budget”. For example, Labor’s Energy Security Fund, part of its carbon tax package, spent over $1 billion last year in 2011-12 and $1 billion again next year in 2013-14 and subsequent years, but less than $1 million this year in 2012-13.  This is called a surplus inspired money shuffle, and none too subtle. By MYEFO last year the Coalition had identified in detail at least $10 billion in blatant money–shuffles like this, while another $5 billion in NBN spending was being kept “off budget”. So Labor’s forecast wafer–thin surplus of $1 billion last October was already, even then, really a deficit of at least $14 billion. And so the debt keeps growing. Recent figures from the Immigration Department suggest that the Treasurer is taking fiscal trickery to an even higher level in the forthcoming May budget. Despite a record 17,000 people arriving by boat in 2012, and a further 3,864 in the first quarter this year, or a 200% increase on the same three months of last year, the government is assuming annual spending on illegal boat arrivals will be a billion dollars lower next financial year than this financial year, and almost a billion dollars lower again in 2014-15, to end up barely one-fifth of this year’s spending. This is why we have been calling for an honest budget; honesty in the budget assumptions on revenue, honesty in the budget forecasts particularly in relation to economic growth, honesty in regards to spending without “cooking the books”. Furthermore, the budget needs to provide an honest assessment of any structural increases in spending being built into Commonwealth outlays whose full fiscal impact may only become apparent beyond the forward estimates period. The presentation of a dishonest budget would only further undermine investor and consumer confidence. A dishonest budget would further confirm in the minds of many that the government’s only plan to deal with the lack of direction on so many fronts, including debt, is in American parlance, “to kick the can down the road”. Failure to begin seriously addressing the structural deficit problems will further expose the vulnerabilities stemming from several years of wasteful and excessive spending, new and increased taxes, the massive debt build-up, and nanny state re-regulation – all of which are making our nation an increasingly risky place to invest, and leading many Australians to ask “what have we got to show for it”.   Conclusion: The Nanny State, government knows best approach has failed.  Australia is directionless, a crisis of confidence pervades consumers who have gone on a spending strike, local businesses are afraid to invest and foreign investors are turning away from growing sovereign risk and massive cost increases. Given our fragile budgetary and debt position, Australia is exposed to any hard landing in China which would feed quickly through to export earnings, unemployment, defaults, and difficulties with bank financing, foreign investor confidence and Australia’s debt levels. Wasteful government spending, over-regulation and growing government debt got us into this problem, more of the same will only compound our vulnerabilities. There is another way.  The government must stop taxing, borrowing, spending and regulating, and start living with its means. The growth and role of big government must be displaced by fostering robust growth of our millions of small and large businesses, and by restoring consumer confidence to spend.  Government must once again provide a measure of certainty and stability, and encourage an appetite for risk and investment.  The Coalition’s plan for government is designed to deliver such a change. Andrew Robb Wed, 03 Apr 2013 02:09:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1499 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1494/Spotlight-on-Labors-Spending-Crisis.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1494 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1494&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1494/Spotlight-on-Labors-Spending-Crisis.aspx SPOTLIGHT ON LABOR’S SPENDING CRISIS Labor’s serious and undeniable spending crisis has been further exposed by a fresh round of budget analysis by some of Australia’s most respected business groups.   Today in a damning assessment the Business Council of Australia (BCA) said the budget is in “urgent need of repair” because “the government’s fiscal strategy is not working and needs a major rethink”, Shadow Minister for Finance, Andrew Robb observed.   “Analysis by Deloitte Access Economics shows that Labor has added almost $50 billion to the budget in new spending programs just as its massive stimulus splurge was being unwound. It must be remembered that this is on top of a total stimulus spend amounting to a staggering $87 billion as confirmed by Treasury,” Mr Robb said.   The Gillard government is now spending over $90 billion more per year – about 35 per cent – compared to the last year of the Howard government, despite inflation of just 14 per cent over the entire period.   Over the past four budgets the government has effectively spent $172 billion more than it has earned in revenue and despite the government spin about spending restraint, real expenditure is set to grow again next year at 4.4 per cent, while the terms of trade decline.   The BCA also warns of a $60 billion budget black hole over the forward estimates alone, while beyond this period the Australian Financial Review estimates a Labor black hole of $120 billion as a result of unfunded spending promises.   The BCA analysis also found that around $15 billion in so-called government savings were in fact “timing shifts”, money shuffles in other words.   “This comes after Macroeconomics analysis for the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) put the budget’s structural deficit at an alarming $66 billion in 2011-12, with the problem enduring ‘as far as the eye can see’, until at least 2025-26,” Mr Robb said.   “We have been sounding the alarm about the structural deficit for several years now, which is the key indicator of a government living beyond its means. These are spending commitments made during boom times that cannot be sustained when things taper off.”   Both the BCA and the MCA back the Coalition’s commitment to a major commission of audit, a root and branch review of Commonwealth expenditure, the first since 1996.   “The evidence continues to mount; this government has a spending crisis, not the ‘woe is me’ revenue problem it bemoans. Revenue continues to grow steadily, just not in-line with Labor’s Pollyanna forecasts and wanton spending,” Mr Robb said. Media Contact:          Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521.   Andrew Robb Wed, 06 Mar 2013 02:54:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1494 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1492/Transcript--3AW-Drive-with-Tom-Elliott.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1492 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1492&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1492/Transcript--3AW-Drive-with-Tom-Elliott.aspx TRANSCRIPT INTERVIEW WITH TOM ELLIOTT 3AW MELBOURNE Topics: Labor’s debt, repealing the carbon tax, a future Coalition government E&OE…………………………………………………………………………………….   TOM ELLIOTT:   On the line is the Federal Shadow Minister for Finance, Andrew Robb, Mr Robb, good afternoon.   ANDREW ROBB:   Good afternoon, Tom, nice to talk to you. TOM ELLIOTT:   Now total taxes, are they a bit too high in Australia?   ANDREW ROBB:   Look, you’re absolutely on the money with your comments. We haven’t got a revenue problem in this country we have got a spending problem.   The government, in the last four years, has racked up the four biggest deficits in our history, and have spent 172 billion dollars more than they have received in revenue.   But at the same time, they have imposed 27 new or increased taxes and as well, they have borrowed over a quarter of a trillion dollars, which is deferred taxation.   We have got new taxes coming out of our ears, and all we need to do is start to live within our means like the average family has to line up their spending with the amount of money that is coming in to the household each week.   It is no different for a government and the debate is being hijacked by those who just want the easy way out.   But what it is doing is killing business and incentive, increasing costs. We must start to put a stop to new and increased taxes and start focussing on the spending side.   TOM ELLIOTT:   OK now of course there is a federal election coming up later this year, we assume it will be in September although there is a chance it could be earlier. If you are the new Finance Minister for the Coalition, for a new Coalition government, would you promise not to increase taxes overall?   ANDREW ROBB:   The first piece of legislation that we will bring in is the removal of the carbon tax. That’s $10 billion dollars of revenue, or thereabouts, that we will take out of the system. That’s a cost that is currently going on to households, on to every small and medium and large business in the country.   And we will remove the mining tax, and we will look at the spending side, reducing spending, live within our means – one of the key principles that has driven all of our policy development.   TOM ELLIOTT:   But given that the current government is already spending more than it makes, if you’re going to cut back on two big taxes, the carbon tax and the mining tax, that means you are going to have to make some pretty tough spending decisions too, aren’t you?   ANDREW ROBB:   Well, we do, and we have spent two and a half years working out how we can do that. And we will put that out for the electorate to make a judgment on in due course.   But it is a very simple principle, because what is happening at the moment is that every time there is a problem, there is an issue, people say, what is the government going to do about it? What can the government spend to solve the problem?   They are ignoring the fact that we have got two and a half million businesses, small, medium and large, that are labouring under massively increased costs and regulation. If we can take away a lot of that regulation and a lot of those costs, specifically some of the tax costs, we would make them more competitive.   They start to invest, they start to make money, they start to pay taxes, and then, we have forgotten about the potential for the private sector, for businesses large and small, 2.4 million of them, to do the job of growing this economy and put government aside. Get government out of the centre of things, get taxes out of the centre of things and give the responsibility back to individuals and companies.   TOM ELLIOTT:    Andrew Robb, I know you have got to catch a plane; I appreciate your time this afternoon.   ANDREW ROBB:   Thanks very much, Tom.     Andrew Robb Fri, 01 Mar 2013 07:40:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1492 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1493/Transcript--3AW-Drive-with-Tom-Elliott.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1493 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1493&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1493/Transcript--3AW-Drive-with-Tom-Elliott.aspx TRANSCRIPT INTERVIEW WITH TOM ELLIOTT 3AW MELBOURNE Topics: Labor’s debt, repealing the carbon tax, a future Coalition government E&OE…………………………………………………………………………………….   TOM ELLIOTT:   On the line is the Federal Shadow Minister for Finance, Andrew Robb, Mr Robb, good afternoon.   ANDREW ROBB:   Good afternoon, Tom, nice to talk to you. TOM ELLIOTT:   Now total taxes, are they a bit too high in Australia?   ANDREW ROBB:   Look, you’re absolutely on the money with your comments. We haven’t got a revenue problem in this country we have got a spending problem.   The government, in the last four years, has racked up the four biggest deficits in our history, and have spent 172 billion dollars more than they have received in revenue.   But at the same time, they have imposed 27 new or increased taxes and as well, they have borrowed over a quarter of a trillion dollars, which is deferred taxation.   We have got new taxes coming out of our ears, and all we need to do is start to live within our means like the average family has to line up their spending with the amount of money that is coming in to the household each week.   It is no different for a government and the debate is being hijacked by those who just want the easy way out.   But what it is doing is killing business and incentive, increasing costs. We must start to put a stop to new and increased taxes and start focussing on the spending side.   TOM ELLIOTT:   OK now of course there is a federal election coming up later this year, we assume it will be in September although there is a chance it could be earlier. If you are the new Finance Minister for the Coalition, for a new Coalition government, would you promise not to increase taxes overall?   ANDREW ROBB:   The first piece of legislation that we will bring in is the removal of the carbon tax. That’s $10 billion dollars of revenue, or thereabouts, that we will take out of the system. That’s a cost that is currently going on to households, on to every small and medium and large business in the country.   And we will remove the mining tax, and we will look at the spending side, reducing spending, live within our means – one of the key principles that has driven all of our policy development.   TOM ELLIOTT:   But given that the current government is already spending more than it makes, if you’re going to cut back on two big taxes, the carbon tax and the mining tax, that means you are going to have to make some pretty tough spending decisions too, aren’t you?   ANDREW ROBB:   Well, we do, and we have spent two and a half years working out how we can do that. And we will put that out for the electorate to make a judgment on in due course.   But it is a very simple principle, because what is happening at the moment is that every time there is a problem, there is an issue, people say, what is the government going to do about it? What can the government spend to solve the problem?   They are ignoring the fact that we have got two and a half million businesses, small, medium and large, that are labouring under massively increased costs and regulation. If we can take away a lot of that regulation and a lot of those costs, specifically some of the tax costs, we would make them more competitive.   They start to invest, they start to make money, they start to pay taxes, and then, we have forgotten about the potential for the private sector, for businesses large and small, 2.4 million of them, to do the job of growing this economy and put government aside. Get government out of the centre of things, get taxes out of the centre of things and give the responsibility back to individuals and companies.   TOM ELLIOTT:    Andrew Robb, I know you have got to catch a plane; I appreciate your time this afternoon.   ANDREW ROBB:   Thanks very much, Tom.     Andrew Robb Thu, 28 Feb 2013 07:43:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1493 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1478/Transcript--Interview-with-Ross-Greenwood--2GB.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1478 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1478&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1478/Transcript--Interview-with-Ross-Greenwood--2GB.aspx TRANSCRIPT INTERVIEW WITH ROSS GREENWOOD 2GB SYDNEY Topics: RBA governor’s tenure, Labor’s broken surplus promise, savings, Medibank Private E&OE…………………………………………………………………………………….   ROSS GREENWOOD: Andrew Robb is the Shadow Finance Minister, he joins me now. Many thanks for your time, Andrew. ANDREW ROBB: My pleasure, Ross. ROSS GREENWOOD: OK, so first up, in an election period, do you believe it is actually fit and proper for the Treasurer of the day to appoint a new Reserve Bank Governor? ANDREW ROBB: Well he has certainly got the prerogative, but even now I feel that we are really in a position where they have announced the election, and in many ways, these sorts of major decisions, especially when you do get very close to the election they should properly be held over. I think his term actually does finish after the election. Now the Treasurer might make an appointment before, but we have got a great respect for Glenn Stevens, he is not the issue, it is the principle of the matter. It is the same principle that we have been arguing about today with this so called Clean Energy Finance Corporation that the government brought in as a sop to the Greens when they brought in the carbon tax. It is $10 billion, every dollar being borrowed, and yet the first decisions to be made on projects will be after July 1, really in the caretaker period, and it is quite improper in our view to be giving money to projects which the private sector wouldn’t touch with a 40-foot barge pole in the run down to an election, things that we might have to review the contracts [of]. Now the same principle applies here. The caretaker period, it is really a caretaker period now, and decisions like that of the Reserve Bank Governor should be, I think the Treasurer should respect the fact that we are in a caretaker period and perhaps hold that over to establish who is going to be the government after the election, and they properly make the decision and go forward. ROSS GREENWOOD: OK because one of the things that has been argued, the toss has been argued as to a) whether the government should have really been able to stick to its pledge to bring the budget back into balance, of course on your side we have had the Shadow Treasurer, Joe Hockey, say that really, based on the numbers that are in front of you right now he believes that you can actually bring the budget back in your first term of government were you elected. I mean, you’re the Finance Minister, you are the one that is going to have to make the hard calls on many of the spending initiatives in Australia right now, do you really think there is capacity within our Australian economy right now to make those sorts of cuts without plunging the economy back into recession or into a serious downturn? ANDREW ROBB: Well, two things, firstly  what Joe Hockey is saying is that the only numbers that are out there at the moment in the public arena for us to make an assessment on are those that were in the mid- year fiscal outlook (MYEFO), which was brought down in October. Now since then, the Treasurer has said the surplus which was predicted in the mid-year outlook no longer is doable, possible, dropped it. But he hasn’t put any numbers out with it. So Joe is saying based on the MYEFO forecast, we would deliver a surplus. But the fact of the matter is everyone is in a state of limbo because the government has not released any data whatsoever to show why they will not get to a surplus, how big a deficit we are going to expect in this next May Budget so that’s a very important qualifier that Joe put on that. And we can only go on what is out there, and we will look at the numbers whenever the Treasurer decides that the finance market and everyone else should be able to have access to them. It is just a government in chaos, I have got to say, on this front. On the second thing Ross, which is very important, we have got to move, and move quickly away from what is a high taxing high borrowing nanny state government with initiatives to drive growth through the private sector, the millions of small and large businesses. That’s how we will overcome the sort of growth gap with this government deficit and the government’s problems with the fiscal side of things. We have got to physically have another way of running this economy. ROSS GREENWOOD: Alright, let’s go through some of those ways. Let’s go number one, now the things that are probably pretty much known. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation, you mentioned it earlier. Under your scheme, that would pretty much go. Much of that Clean Energy Corporation would disappear. ANDREW ROBB: All of it. ROSS GREENWOOD: And therefore as a result, you would take that $10 billion back in to your revenues. The National Broadband Network would be a second thing that you have actually already said, we will change the nature of that, we will look at the contracts, we will see what we can do try and downscale the size of the NBN. ANDREW ROBB: Well not downscale the size of it. We will have a National Broadband Network, but it won’t be fibre to every home, it will be fibre to the node. ROSS GREENWOOD: Which will have massive savings in terms of getting the fibre from the node at the end of your neighbourhood in to your house, OK, so that’s another one we know about. ANDREW ROBB: Different technology, but much cheaper and quicker delivery. ROSS GREENWOOD: That’s right. So we also know that there are plans, and that this has been suggested, for public servant cuts of 12,000. We saw also the damage that was done to Campbell Newman and his Queensland government after he cut 14,000 public servants. By cutting the best part of let’s say, 4.8 – 5% of the public servants in Australia, do you think that that could be delivered and not have your government go down the same that Campbell Newman’s has? ANDREW ROBB: Well what we have said is that in the first two years we will not be replacing those public servants that retire or leave for other reasons. So it’s not retrenchments, it is just not renewing or replacing people who leave. And the bottom line is that the public service is now 20,000 more than there were in the Howard years. So it’s just exploding like topsy so we have just got to rein in spending on every front, and that’s one of the fronts we have got to scale back programs and as a consequence, we can absorb that, but like I say, it is not just… you have got to replace that with activity in the private sector. At this moment, no one in the private sector is investing. There is a crisis of confidence, they don’t feel any stability, no direction. If we come in and provide sensible, mature stable government, with a focus on reducing cost to business and regulations, they will start to invest, fire up the economy, growth will come from that area and it will replace the growth that is currently coming from government spending. ROSS GREENWOOD: OK but in those public servants, you have got 27,000 in Centrelink, you have got 23,000 in the tax office, you have got Defence, 21,000, you have already made strong views about the cuts that the government is proposing in the defence sector and whether that leaves Australia exposed, and also then you have got more coming down the line. But they are the three big ones, aren’t they? ANDREW ROBB: Well they are the big ones, but what we are saying is across the public service, and we are not cutting defence, we reserve the right to better spend money within defence, so to move programs around, but we cannot put the defence of the nation at further risk. We are now at the lowest level of spending as a proportion of GDP since 1938. And the government is just going in to every possible pot of gold around the place, every resource of funds, they are cutting and slashing where they don’t think there will be a political consequence for them, irrespective of what it means for the defence of the nation. ROSS GREENWOOD: OK, final one for you, Medibank Private, will you sell that? ANDREW ROBB: Medibank Private is something that we have long advocated that we would sell, yes. ROSS GREENWOOD: And so what would that bring you $3 billion or around that? ANDREW ROBB: Probably more than that, but we will need to be able to assess the market and that can only really be done from government, but previous recent assessments by private investment banks and others, put it somewhere around the $4 billion mark. ROSS GREENWOOD: Andrew Robb, Shadow Finance Minister, I’ll talk to you in the coming months no doubt about all of this, there is plenty more to talk about. We appreciate your time tonight. ANDREW ROBB: My pleasure, Ross. Andrew Robb Tue, 05 Feb 2013 09:39:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1478 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1476/Transcript--Interview-with-Zeb-Eckert--Bloomberg-Television.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1476 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1476&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1476/Transcript--Interview-with-Zeb-Eckert--Bloomberg-Television.aspx TRANSCRIPT INTERVIEW WITH ZEB ECKERT BLOOMBERG TELEVISION Topics: Eight month election campaign, Labor’s poor economic management, Glenn Stevens’ tenure, Tony Abbott. E&OE…………………………………………………………………………………….   ZEB ECKERT: Welcome back; I’m Zeb Eckert in Hong Kong. Australia’s beginning an eight-month election marathon. Prime Minister Julia Gillard has called a vote on September 14th. It’ll be Australia’s longest election campaign in history; and some say this is to focus voter attention on the Opposition Leader Tony Abbott. His Liberal Party is ahead in the polls but he personally lags behind Julia Gillard; as voters prefer the Prime Minister.   Well if the Opposition wins then my next guest will become Australia’s next Finance Minister. Andrew Robb is Australia’s Shadow Finance Minister; and he also chairs the Coalition Policy Development Committee which coordinates all policy planning across 49 departments ahead of the election. Mr Robb, welcome to the program. I want to start by asking you about this unprecedented move by Ms Gillard, the Prime Minister, calling this election with the most advanced notice in 60 years. What do you think this means for the race in general?   ANDREW ROBB: Well it clearly was a politically inspired move by the Prime Minister. She’s still under a lot of internal pressure from the previous Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, who was deposed a couple of years ago by the backroom boys within her party. If their position doesn’t improve in the polls, there may have been internal pressure for a reversion back to him; so I think the Prime Minister has acted to try and create a sense of a campaign, and it would be unwise to have the instability of moving against her in her own party. So it is a politically-inspired move. Sadly though, it is going to create a fair bit of uncertainty for eight months. In some way it will put many business decisions on hold – that always happens within a campaign – but now we’ve got one that is going to stretch over 200 days.   ZEB ECKERT:   Sir you are charged with devising the Coalition’s policies. Although the Opposition has been critical of the government’s economic policies, you have the chance to change that of course if you win on September 14, so what would a Tony Abbott-led government bring or change in Australia? What would you deliver?   ANDREW ROBB: Well Zeb what we’ve seen is what was a very healthy position fiscally in this country deteriorate. We’ve had the four biggest deficits in our history despite the highest terms of trade in 150 years, and a huge build-up of debt, and there’s no obvious plan by the government to reduce that – to fix that problem.   Fundamentally, the government has relied very heavily on government spending, government taxing, government borrowing and a welter of regulations and new approvals. And I suppose our intent is to get the government back to living within its means; and replace if you like, or displace that heavy emphasis on government driving much of the growth, and try and shift it to the private sector. So to do lots of things that would fire up the private sector. The millions of small and large businesses that in many cases, at the moment, are sitting on large cash balances, and haven’t got the confidence to make investment decisions even though they’ve got the money there to do it, but they’re not responding. So we will have a very strong shift from a government, and a country being directed by government to one which relies far more heavily on the private sector; and including a lot of investment and hopefully a lot of investment from the region.   ZEB ECKERT:   One of the issues that has come from this early call of election by the Prime Minister is the future of the Central Bank Governor, Glenn Stevens. His term expires three days after the election. I’m curious how you would grade his job performance.   ANDREW ROBB: We’ve felt that the Reserve Bank and the Governor has in fact performed quite admirably. In many ways it was a former government of ours that gave a lot more independence – in fact gave independence to the Reserve Bank. I think we’ve been privileged in Australia to have had a series of heads of the bank that have performed very well; and Glenn Stevens again fits into that category.   In many ways because of the excessive spending as we see it, by the government, the Reserve Bank over the last few years has been forced to do a lot of what we call the heavy lifting with monetary policy and I think Glenn Stevens and his colleagues have been very adroit in the way in which they have managed that; and it’s been to the benefit of the country.   ZEB ECKERT:   Sir we have about a minute left. I’m curious whether you think Governor Stevens should be replaced before this election, or is that something the new government should handle?   ANDREW ROBB: Well I think it would normally be the situation which is dealt by the government of the day; so if his term does expire given that in many respects there has already been an announcement about an election date, so much of what happens between now and then really means that the government is almost in a caretaker mode in lots of respects, and a lot of these sorts of decisions – we’re in unchartered waters and I think that we need to work through some of these issues.   But normally these sorts of things in an election campaign would be put off until there is clarity about who is going to form the next government, and I think that should apply in this case as well.   ZEB ECKERT:   Sir, before we go, I need to ask you about Tony Abbott, because he trails Julia Gillard in terms of personal ratings. He has been portrayed as relentlessly negative. So as you lay out your strategy over the next eight months, how do you turn that around, and can he bear the level of scrutiny over the next eight months?   ANDREW ROBB: Well, firstly, to be honest, there isn’t a great deal of difference between the approval ratings of the two of them. But Australia is not a popularity contest in the way that the political process works here.   It’s not like the presidential campaigns in the United States, for instance. There’s a much stronger emphasis on the party, and who people can trust both with the leader and with his or her party. And in that regard, I think Tony Abbott is a long way ahead in terms of who people feel they can trust to do what they say they will do. In that regard, I think Tony is in a very strong position within our party. He will take us to the election very clearly; and I think he is well placed to become the next prime minister.   ZEB ECKERT:   Mr Robb, we thank you for joining us. The man who could become Australia’s next Finance Minister if in fact the opposition wins in September. Andrew Robb, Australia’s Shadow Finance Minister joining us live on the program. Andrew Robb Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:37:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1476 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1475/Transcript--Interview-with-Marius-Benson--ABC-News-Radio.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1475 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1475&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1475/Transcript--Interview-with-Marius-Benson--ABC-News-Radio.aspx TRANSCRIPT INTERVIEW WITH MARIUS BENSON ABC NEWS RADIO Topics: Coalition policies, economic management. E&OE…………………………………………………………………………………….   ANNOUNCER:   Andrew Robb, the Shadow Finance Minister, has been a key figure in drawing up the Coalition’s policies, and he is speaking here to Marius Benson   MARIUS BENSON:   Andrew Robb, good morning.   ANDREW ROBB:   Good morning Marius   MARIUS BENSON:   I think for some time you have said the policies are ready to go, they’re ready to go.   ANDREW ROBB:   We are better prepared than I have seen any Opposition in my thirty years in and around politics, so we have done an enormous amount of work, we are ready to take responsibility for this economy.   We have said for a long time now that we will follow our own timetable, not Labor’s timetable about releasing them, because we cannot, in any responsible way, on our budget or our policy formulation, until we know the real state of the economy that we might take over if we are successful at the election.   MARIUS BENSON:   I saw a couple of Labor leaders saying yesterday that things will be known after the Budget in May. Will you be releasing your policies then, because that is still four months short of the election?   ANDREW ROBB:   Well again… the government still has got eight months to go, even after the Budget they will still have another four months to go. Now for this government, that is a serious amount of time to compound the financial mess that they have already created. We will need to know the reality of the nation’s finances before closing the books.   Now, we will see the pre-election fiscal outlook which is released early in the campaign. It is the honest numbers prepared by Treasury and Finance, not the political numbers which will belong to the Treasurer in the Budget. This Budget, in a sense, will be the first Budget in history, really, that is in the middle of an election campaign. So how can we possibly trust what the Treasurer puts before us in May?   We need to see what Treasury and Finance put before us in the pre-election fiscal outlook and then we can close the books, put out all the detail and costings, and we will most assuredly, in the weeks before, give people a sense of what we are going to do in an election.   MARIUS BENSON:   Aren’t these costings just a fiction anyway? Because if you get it, can’t you just say, heck it is much more than we thought, we will have to change our plans.   ANDREW ROBB:   No, they are not a fiction. They do frame the task that we have got ahead of us, and people need to know in the run down to an election what the two alternatives are between the two parties. But to be lectured by the Labor Party, who still have $120 billion of unfunded promises sitting out there on the table, by the Labor Party who six weeks ago said it couldn’t deliver a surplus, yet they are still unable to reveal any Treasury estimates that led to that announcement.   This is a government that is in financial and political chaos, and yesterday’s announcement, which in effect will really put Australia on hold for nine months, purely for political purposes demonstrated the political and financial mess this government is in.   MARIUS BENSON:   Looking at the polls, particularly those marginal polls, you are very very well placed, you look like not far short of a certainty to win in September, the big negative for you is Tony Abbott. Now Australian voters know Tony Abbott very well, they have known him for a long time, why do they dislike him so much?   ANDREW ROBB:   Tony is not the big negative for us.   MARIUS BENSON:   Sorry, what is a bigger negative?   ANDREW ROBB:   The fact of the matter is, we are in a strong position. We need to sustain that strong position. We need to take nothing for granted. We need to complete the work and convince people and demonstrate to people over these eight months that we are ready for government, that we are ready to be the adults in the room to take over.   MARIUS BENSON:   Sure, can I just press that point? Why is Tony Abbott so personally unpopular with voters.   ANDREW ROBB:   I’m not getting into personality politics. The government has spent all of last year demonising Tony Abbott. They have had experts from the U.S. out here giving them tutorials on how to run the sort of smear campaign that they so effectively ran against Romney in the U.S., but this is a different country.   This is not an election based on popularity, it is an election based on who people can trust to reduce cost of living, to run the economy in a sensible way, to live within their means. Who can they trust to boost small business and jobs? Who can they trust to secure our borders?   That is how people will make a judgement. That’s how Tony Abbott and his party are, at the moment, people are attracted to see a change, in my view. We need to lock that in, we need to demonstrate now over the months ahead that we truly are ready and that we can take over government, and we can do what people want, and that is deliver sensible and responsible government.   MARIUS BENSON:   The government says you’re just promising good news, a sort of magic pudding of finance as you will deliver a budget surplus, you will lower debt, there will be new spending with paid parental leave, and quite expensive initiatives like that, but there has to be pain.   Can you nominate areas that will feel pain under a Coalition government, where there will be cuts?   ANDREW ROBB:   Penny Wong said it was all about philosophy last night, I heard her on the television. And she is absolutely right. This is a government that has spent and spent and spent. This is a government that has assumed that government knows best.   MARIUS BENSON:   But I was just asking you narrowly where will the pain be felt? Where will the cuts be?   ANDREW ROBB:   It is not just a function of costings, Marius. We have seen the greatest growth of government and regulation in our history. These are the sorts of things that are stopping investments, these are the sorts of things that are making business sit on their hands and not invest the cash that they have got on their balance sheets. This government believes that they should run the show.   The thing is, our philosophy, we are not about the growth of government. That has got to be displaced by fostering robust growth of our millions of small and large businesses, and restoring confidence and we will do that. We will give certainty back to the community in terms of the management of this economy. We will live within our means in the books, and that will involve some difficult decisions.   The school kids allowance, we have taken that on the chin because we have just got to look and take some hard decisions in terms of balancing the books, living within our means, and making sure that people aren’t waking up at 2.30 in the morning worrying about if they are going to keep their job.   This is what is happening at the present time, this is why no one is spending because there is such anxiety and concern throughout the community, both in the business community and amongst every day Australians.   MARIUS BENSON:   Andrew Robb, thank you very much.   ANDREW ROBB:   Thanks very much, Marius. Andrew Robb Thu, 31 Jan 2013 05:36:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1475 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1474/Opinion-Piece--Australian-Financial-Review--Labor-has-a-spending-problem.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1474 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1474&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1474/Opinion-Piece--Australian-Financial-Review--Labor-has-a-spending-problem.aspx Andrew Robb It is time Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan stopped crying wolf about the economy and started taking responsibility for the problems they themselves have created. The Treasurer says delivering a surplus is all too hard and has given up, blaming a shortfall in tax revenue. He claims: “What we have here is a huge revenue whack if you like, out of the blue, which has made it very hard to get to a surplus in 2012-13”. Well this is nonsense. The truth is, over the first four months of this financial year, revenues were 9.2 per cent higher than the previous year. I suspect many households could cope with incomes rising at 9 per cent. Revenues are steadily growing, but can’t catch up with the government’s spending increases which, for that same four months, were 4 per cent ahead of last year, coming off an already hugely bloated spending base; the result of years of excessive spending. Labor doesn’t have a revenue problem, it has a spending and forecasting problem. It has constantly and deliberately assumed unachievable levels of future revenue, spent at those levels and then cried “woe is me” when the politically inspired, inflated forecasts are not realised. This government has wasted the mining boom, and the great economic strengths inherited from John Howard and Peter Costello, by continuing with years of over-spending long after the $87 billion stimulus package had run its course on pink batts, cheques to dead people and school halls. This year alone Swan is spending $90 billion, or 35 per cent, more than was spent in the budget just five years ago – $3 billion more than the total stimulus spend – despite inflation of just 14 per cent over that entire period. For too long this government has used the global financial crisis as an excuse for its wasteful spending, new and increased taxes, massive debt build-up and nanny state re-regulation. Australia should be in a far better position given the circumstances we have been blessed with, notwithstanding the GFC. Let’s remember, it is now nearly half a decade since the peak of the financial crisis, and even then its principal impact was on the northern hemisphere. Since then Europe has continued to struggle, though Germany and at least five other European countries are back in surplus, while the United States is now responding to massive discoveries of cheap gas and oil, and a low US dollar. During this period Australia has been blessed with the highest terms of trade in 150 years, leading to massive resource projects, the envy of the world. Today Australia’s terms of trade remain around 30 per cent higher than in the final year of the Howard government, but you wouldn’t know it. We have continued to be the beneficiaries of 7-9 per cent growth of the Chinese economy. China is now by far our largest export market with the value of those exports growing from $8.8 billion in 2001-02 to $82.5 billion in 2011-12. Yet the government has posted the four biggest budget deficits in our nation’s history, with a fifth set to follow. Federal government debt has gone from zero, with $70 billion in the bank, to net debt of $147 billion and gross debt of $263 billion with annual interest payments exceeding $7 billion. If spending levels had returned to the pre-stimulus trend Australia’s budget could, and should, have been back in surplus last year, much less this and subsequent years. If several European countries can get back to surplus, there is absolutely no excuse for Australia. You wouldn’t know it from the clever and unrelenting Labor spin, but the government has spent $172 billion more than it has received in revenue over the last four years. This is despite a growing economy, levying 27 new and increased taxes and the virtual doubling of mining revenues to government $36 billion (2004-08) to $72 billion (2008-12). Now Swan is promising more deficit spending, more taxes and more debt. In other words ,just more of the same. The white flag has gone up – the government has no economic plan other than to promise a further $120 billion of unfunded spending on Gonski, dental, disabilities, NBN and the like. Australia is being drawn into unsustainable debt. Confidence has collapsed. There is another way. The government must stop taxing, borrowing, spending and regulating, and start living within its means. This growth of government must be displaced by fostering robust growth of our millions of small and large businesses, and by restoring consumer confidence to spend. Andrew Robb is the opposition finance spokesman and co-ordinator of Coalition policy development.   Andrew Robb Tue, 22 Jan 2013 22:33:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1474 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1472/Opinion--Business-Spectator--Let-everyone-in-on-retail-corporate-bonds.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1472 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1472&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1472/Opinion--Business-Spectator--Let-everyone-in-on-retail-corporate-bonds.aspx    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Andrew-Robb-corporate-bond-market-super-funds-pd20130115-3Y7DY?opendocument&src=rss   Let everyone in on retail corporate bonds Andrew Robb Published 6:44 AM, 16 Jan 2013 Business Spectator There is no doubt that an active and well developed market in retail corporate bonds is the missing link in our country’s otherwise sophisticated financial system. It is something that has been much talked about by government yet progress has been glacial despite widespread consensus for its need. In December of 2011, Stephen Bartholomeusz wrote that if we were still just talking about the issue in twelve months (December 2012) it would represent a failure to create some insurance against the risk posed to our domestic system by the disturbing developments in off-shore debt markets (High time for corporate bond action, December 13, 2011). We are still talking about it but it is pleasing to see the government finally release draft legislation designed to go some way towards making the buying and selling of retail corporate bonds an easier proposition. This comes after I outlined in detail last November the actions a Coalition government would take to stimulate the development of a deep and liquid market. It followed extensive consultation with likely market participants and our approach was broadly endorsed. This was perhaps the rocket Wayne Swan needed to replace words with a bit of action. The development of a smarter and simpler regulatory framework is fundamental; so the trading of retail corporate bonds is comparable with other asset classes, particularly equities. The proposals put forward by the government in regard to streamlining the disclosure regime for simple corporate bond offers; reform of civil liability provisions regarding corporate bonds issued to investors and the clarifying of defences related to misleading and deceptive statements and omissions in disclosure documents, are on the right track and reflect areas I outlined. But the issue of accessibility is something I also strongly highlighted and is one area the government does not seem to fully grasp. Just as issuing retail corporate bonds should be easier, the purchase should be simpler, and much effort must be made to help educate the market because understandably there is a real knowledge gap among possible market participants. National Australia Bank's Rick Sawers hit it on the head when he said if you arrived from outer space in the morning you could probably be buying shares online by 5pm, but buying a bond is a completely different story. It makes no sense to have very simple access to one type of investment, an equity, yet have almost no access to lower risk corporate bonds. A transparent system in which the two types of asset can be compared and assessed side by side is needed. For investors, creating a market that is easily accessible in the same way the share market is must be the goal. This would include access through online trading platforms that can be used on laptops, tablets and mobile phones. This is important given the premium investors are now placing on more stable and reliable returns over longer periods as a result of the volatility they have witnessed and losses they have suffered in equities in the wake of the GFC. This includes the ever expanding pool of self-managed superannuants, whose numbers have almost doubled since 2004 to more than 913,000 with investments exceeding $478 billion. Simpler access to a domestic retail corporate bond market will support investment diversification for superannuants. At present about 50 per cent of our super investments are in shares; the highest in the world. For issuers a well functioning local market should mean, particularly over time as scale develops, cheaper and easier to access funding. This should make this new source of domestic funds more competitive with offshore raising options, such as the USD (144a) market. For banks this opportunity for diversification could assist Australian institutions seeking to comply with Basel III requirements that have direct implications for funding and liquidity and reduce reliance on international wholesale financial markets to fund economic growth. And both banks and businesses could benefit from the space potentially freed up on bank balance sheets to support small and medium sized businesses by providing increased access to funds. Developing a more efficient regulatory framework with adequate consumer safeguards is a role for government however the market must be allowed to naturally evolve; to set relative pricing, fees, tenor and volume. Only then will we be able to determine how it develops in the broader context of the Australian financial system. The role of government must be to facilitate a stronger overall financial system, and then to let the system function without undue interference. There will still be barriers, such as low participation, execution risk for issuers and onerous conditions, and at present there are advantages in issuing offshore. And with a coupon at around 3 per cent government bonds can’t compete with government-backed bank term deposits at around 5 per cent. But better regulation, not more regulation, can help remove barriers and create a competitive low-cost market that is a genuine and viable alternative to issuing overseas. As the market develops additional issues that will require further consideration by government will doubtless emerge. For example, the scope and merit of facilitating existing “seasoned” wholesale bonds being moved to the listed debt platform, so they can be traded by retail and wholesale investors interchangeably – similar to the approach being taken for Commonwealth Government Securities – should be considered. This may be an efficient way of consolidating the market and, by allowing a large number of wholesale bonds to be available to retail investors, creating better price transparency, more liquidity and a good foundation for future primary issuance, rather than trying to build the market one new issue at a time. The government’s draft legislation is merely the beginning, but at least the intent to develop the market remains on the agenda, which could be left for the Coalition to finish the job. Andrew Robb is the shadow minister for Finance, Deregulation and Debt Reduction. Andrew Robb Tue, 15 Jan 2013 22:22:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1472 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1469/Letter-to-the-Editor--Living-within-our-means.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1469 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1469&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1469/Letter-to-the-Editor--Living-within-our-means.aspx  Living within our means   Australian Financial Review, 07 January 2013   Reserve Bank governor Glenn Stevens says present and future governments need to commit to a medium-term strategy for budget sustainability ("RBA's Stevens warns of growth gap", AFR, December 19).   He is saying that government has to get back to living within its means after the reckless fiscal policy we have seen over the past four years.   The big problem is the Gillard government has no meaningful budget strategy beyond its surplus promise which it is now crabwalking away from.   One only has to look at Labor's performance against its own supposed medium-term fiscal strategy.   They've never delivered a surplus and probably never will, tax takes are lower than they would like them to be because many parts of the economy are struggling, net financial worth has markedly deteriorated and gross debt has gone above $260 billion.   The government claims net debt will be paid off by 2020-21, yet it has no actual plan to achieve this.   The Coalition's commission of audit will be an important part of restoring the budget's sustainability.   Andrew Robb Shadow finance minister, Canberra   Andrew Robb Mon, 07 Jan 2013 00:36:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1469 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1468/Transcript--2GB-Sydney-with-Andrew-Moore.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1468 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1468&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1468/Transcript--2GB-Sydney-with-Andrew-Moore.aspx  TRANSCRIPT INTERVIEW WITH ANDREW MOORE 2GB SYDNEY   Topics: Wayne Swan’s budget surplus back-flip, Government overspending on the NBN   E&OE…………………………………………………………………………………….   ANDREW MOORE: We were inundated yesterday afternoon, after 2 o’clock with callers, emailers, telling us in no uncertain terms what they thought of Wayne Swan and his predictable back-flip over the government’s promise to return the budget to surplus. People were furious; everyone had been saying that this was impossible but yet Wayne Swan, Julia Gillard et al, kept saying, as recently as a week ago, that yes, we’ll be sweet, don’t worry about it, we’ll get to surplus, rubbish! And again, it’s a hand pass in many ways to the Opposition to again point to the government’s reputation of following through and telling the truth. Andrew Robb is the Shadow Minister for Finance, Deregulation and Debt Reduction, he is on the line. Andrew, nice to talk to you again, how are you? ANDREW ROBB: Very good thanks Andrew, how are you? ANDREW MOORE: Yeah, excellent. And again, we took this live yesterday until we grew sick of the rhetoric, but this is something that, as we said yesterday, you don’t need to be an economic expert. You need to listen to, I mean, forget about listening to the Opposition on this when they announce where we will be in a Budget surplus, every economic commentator, everyone involved in finance said rubbish, it can’t happen. ANDREW ROBB: Everyone knew. Everyone knew, well, I think the Government knew. The Government was saying, they didn’t just promise a surplus, in the last few months they actually said they had delivered it. Coming out of the last Budget, they said we have now delivered a surplus. Well of course, it was nonsense, everyone knew it was. It just goes again as you said in your opening comments, it is all about breach of trust and integrity. If you can’t trust the government to tell you what is really happening then how can you make business decisions? That is why there is no investment going on, that’s why people are not spending, there is so much uncertainty. ANDREW MOORE: But that was the first reaction everybody had yesterday was, here they go again, they have promised something and it won’t happen. Now a lot of people are saying look, the fact that we are going to stay in deficit for a while isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but why the hell have we been lied to for the last however long? ANDREW ROBB: Well even that, you see, they are even spinning this issue of staying with a deficit. The fact of the matter is, Andrew, that taxing and borrowing and spending and debt and deficit – that got the world in to this malaise. More of the same is not going to fix it, and there is another way. We don’t have to rely on government spending, endless government intervention, more taxes, more debt to carry the economy if they shift the focus to firing up the private sector. If they took away the uncertainty, if they removed all of the rule changes that they keep making, if they stop putting new taxes on, 27 new taxes on business, you would lower the cost, fire up confidence, see investment, and we wouldn’t need government to be spending money. ANDREW MOORE: Well what was your reaction when Wayne Swan was vehemently denying the fact or suggestions that the government had been overspending? ANDREW ROBB: Well firstly, they have spent an extraordinary $172 billion over the last four years more than they have received in revenue. Now if a household did that sort of thing they would be out backwards, they would be in rented accommodation. They are just telling lies, they are misrepresenting the facts. Even now, what Wayne Swan is not admitting to people is that revenues are up this year 6 percent more than last year, yet he is claiming that the deficit problem is because revenues are falling. They just live a life of spin and misrepresentation to go from one day until the next. They are not looking at outcomes for people in 12 months time and two years time, and now it is catching up with them. People are seeing, and they have seen for some time, that you just cannot trust this mob and it then leads to real outcomes for real people in terms of jobs and quality of life and opportunity. They are all being hampered and squashed and frustrated because of a government that has just been in to endless wasteful spending. ANDREW MOORE: Well, my word. But the figures that Wayne Swan was releasing yesterday, were you in dispute with those? ANDREW ROBB: Well he didn’t even release figures. You see what happened was he came on said, well, we will have a deficit again, the fifth in a row, after the four biggest in our history, and we will have another one the year after that, and then they said to him, well tell us the figures, and he said, I am not going to get in to the detail. So here we are with a total collapse of their fiscal strategy, their budget strategy, and yet the treasurer of the country is unwilling and unable to tell us now what the numbers are, everyone is in the dark. ANDREW MOORE: Well not just the treasurer of the country, yesterday in the role of acting Prime Minister. ANDREW ROBB: Exactly! I mean, Julia Gillard said some time ago, you can’t run this country if you can’t manage its budget. Well I think she is absolutely right. ANDREW MOORE: That grab is going to be played a few times between now and the election next year. Were you surprised in any way, shape or form of the timing of Wayne Swan’s comments yesterday? ANDREW ROBB: What, three minutes before Christmas? No, that was pretty predictable as well. ANDREW MOORE: I mentioned yesterday, the only thing that surprised us was that we thought it might come on Christmas eve. ANDREW ROBB: And with the Prime Minister with her feet up somewhere. The timing is exquisite Labor timing. They are past masters at the politics and the spin, but in the end, good politics is all about good policy, and that is the big missing link for this government. They are being found out, and I cannot wait until next year. We have got a program to put together to the people which will show we will start to address the real issues, we will live within our means as a government. ANDREW MOORE: But that’s the question though, and that is what a lot of people are already thinking. Assuming the Coalition wins government back next year, assuming all this financial waste that we have seen since 2007 really, how much are you guys going to have to pull in the reigns? ANDREW ROBB: We will give a cast iron commitment, as a government, we will live within our means. There are tens of billions of dollars of wasteful spending still occurring, you just take the NBN for instance, Australia must have a National Broadband Network, we will deliver it. It is happening in every country in the world, of course it will be delivered. But this is the rolled gold, most inefficient, most costly version anywhere in the world that is going on. After four years, 33,000 houses are connected out of seven and a half million houses, would you believe? And it is costing $55 billion! If we come in, that project alone, we will deliver more quickly, more cheaply and at less cost to the community. ANDREW MOORE: Well you couldn’t possibly do it in a more expensive manner. ANDREW ROBB: We couldn’t but we will engage the private sector. This is my point, there is an alternative. They have gone back to a massive bureaucracy for the most dynamic area of the country, the telecommunications, instead of engaging the private sector and a multitude of different technologies. That is why we will get there quicker, faster and more affordably. That is just one project where we will save tens of billions of dollars. Now we can do that in so many fronts if we place confidence in the private sector, unlock the mountains of money sitting on balance sheets around this country which is not being invested at the moment because business is so spooked by this government, and its indecision and lack of direction, everyone is sitting on their hands, waiting for an election. Consumers are not spending. They might come and buy a meal but they are not going and buying a $4,000 sofa or a new car or a house. Everyone is sitting on their hands. That is why the economy is struggling and we have got to shift from this emphasis on government and more debt, more taxes, more spending, and get our private sector fired up. Then we will see the real opportunities that are out there and the jobs being created. ANDREW MOORE: Andrew, nice to talk to us, I know you are busy today and have a feeling we will be hearing a lot from you in 2013. Merry Christmas to you, I appreciate your time. ANDREW ROBB: You too, Andrew. ANDREW MOORE: Andrew Robb, the Shadow Minister for Finance. Andrew Robb Fri, 21 Dec 2012 07:20:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1468 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1466/Transcript--Interview-with-John-Stanley--2UE-Sydney.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1466 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1466&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1466/Transcript--Interview-with-John-Stanley--2UE-Sydney.aspx  TRANSCRIPT INTERVIEW WITH JOHN STANLEY 2UE SYDNEY   Topics: Labor’s budget surplus back flip   E&OE………………………………………………………………………………………   JOHN STANLEY: To the story that politically ends the year – the government dropping its promise of a budget surplus. It was no real surprise; they may even produce a budget deficit of something like $10 billion. It would surprise absolutely no one, including the Shadow Finance Minister Andrew Robb who joins us now. Mr Robb, good morning. ANDREW ROBB: Good morning, John. JOHN STANLEY: You would be not surprised by this? ANDREW ROBB: I don’t think anyone is surprised. Everyone has been saying it has been coming for two years. Blind Freddie could see if they kept spending wastefully as they have, tens of billions of dollars, there was only one sad outcome, and that was that they would totally undermine and destroy any fiscal strategy, budget strategy. Julia Gillard said a little while ago, ‘if you can’t manage the budget, you can’t run the country’, and we have finished the year with that sour note. JOHN STANLEY: It would have been a dumb thing to do to try and pull government spending back even further, because that would have damaged the economy, wouldn’t it? ANDREW ROBB: This is the furphy, John. There is a chorus out there today saying well they are doing the right thing, that they have got to spend more money. The thing is, taxing and borrowing and spending and debt and deficit got the world in to its malaise. More of the same is not going to fix it, but there is an alternative that they never talk about, and that is to fire up the private sector. There is no investment taking place; people are not spending, there is no confidence. And it is because there is no direction coming out of government, because the government is clearly not managing its own shop properly. If the government got out of the way of business, gave the incentive and the opportunity and the confidence and stability that will fire up the private sector, that will fill the gap. That will create the jobs. JOHN STANLEY: That will start getting the tax receipts coming back again, will it? ANDREW ROBB: It is not just government knows best, government does everything, this got us in to the problem all around the world. JOHN STANLEY: So I am assuming that what you’re saying is by removing the carbon tax and the mining tax, that would be a start? ANDREW ROBB: This is the thing – you lower costs of business, you stop introducing endless changes and confusing and frustrating, and destroying investments, and confidence will build. There is a lot of money, actually a serious amount of money sitting on balance sheets all around the country, but business are saying we have got no confidence to make decisions. They are sitting on their hands; in fact, the same thing is affecting consumers.   People aren’t spending. They might go and have a meal, but they are not going to buy $4,000 worth of new sofa, or a car or a house, because they are saying we have got uncertainty. JOHN STANLEY: Isn’t it also that because we have been involved in a debt binge we have had this massive surge in personal credit and personal debt, and people have been listening for the last few years to the likes of Paul Clitheroe and others who have been educating them about money, saying save, don’t spend, and people haven’t been spending. ANDREW ROBB: They haven’t. People are, as you say, responding correctly to the difficulties around the world, they are living within their means. People are paying down the mortgage, paying off the credit card, living within their means, but the problem is, the government has not been.   The government at the same time has been regulating business to hell. It has been increasing 27 new taxes. And when you do all these things you increase costs, you increase uncertainty for business, you reduce stability in business and decision making. It makes risk taking a lot more difficult and therefore, business has closed up shop.   The alternative, and if we get the privilege of government, we will make sure that government lives within its means. We have got to rein in this reckless borrowing but we have got to fire up the private sector. JOHN STANLEY: Isn’t there also an argument though that when we have this election which now you would think would be almost certainly August or September next year, but once we get to that election they are going to be saying, well look, we are keeping everything in place, the other side wants to remove the mining tax, remove the carbon tax, they will have a fight with the Senate – that voting for Tony Abbott will be guaranteeing another couple of years of uncertainty. ANDREW ROBB: No, no ,no, no. What they really will be saying, what the underlying message is, if you vote Labor at the next election, you will be voting for more taxes, more borrowing, more spending, more debt, and then as confirmed yesterday, many more deficits. And that is exactly the formula that got us in to the malaise we have got, you will be voting for more of the same.   If you vote for Tony Abbott at the next election, you will be voting for getting government out of the road, lowering taxes, removing costs, restoring some stability, not endless change, so someone can take an investment and know over the next five years they can try and get a return on that investment without all the rules changing.   We will restore confidence, and we will get this economy going off the back of the private sector, not off the back of big government. JOHN STANLEY: Alright, are you taking a break over summer? ANDREW ROBB: Yes, looking forward to a couple of weeks actually John, our kids have got cafes and things up on the Northern Beaches so we will go up there and watch them work I think. JOHN STANLEY: Wait a minute, you should be helping them out, shouldn’t you? Isn’t that the idea? Shouldn’t we be seeing you behind the counter? The late Wal Murray, he used to be Deputy Premier in New South Wales, he used to go work in the fish and chip shop up in Moree. ANDREW ROBB: Well I would like to, but they say, dad you’re not getting anywhere near the barista, our reputation is based on our good coffee, you go and sit over there and talk to the customers.  JOHN STANLEY: You’ve got out of that like a politician, well done! Alright, you have a good Christmas and a good New Year. I’m sure we will talk next year. ANDREW ROBB: Thanks John, all the best. JOHN STANLEY: Andrew Robb, who is the Shadow Finance Minister.   Andrew Robb Fri, 21 Dec 2012 01:52:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1466 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1462/Interview--Bloomberg-TV-Hong-Kong.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1462 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1462&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1462/Interview--Bloomberg-TV-Hong-Kong.aspx TRANSCRIPT INTERVIEW WITH SUSAN LI BLOOMBERG TV, HONG KONG     Topics: Australian economy, interest rates, debt levels, policy priorities.   E&OE…………………………………………………………………………………….    SUSAN LI: Australia’s Shadow Finance Minister, Andrew Robb, joins us. He chairs the Coalition Policy Development Committee which coordinates all policy planning across the Liberal Party just ahead of the next year’s election, hopefully in November, is that right Andrew? ANDREW ROBB:    The sooner the better, I hope.   SUSAN LI:   That’s right. Now that it looks like the Liberal Party is set to take on the leadership in Australia, are you concerned about the slowing economy right now?   ANDREW ROBB:   I think everyone is concerned about the softer economy. There is a lot of opportunity in Australia, it is just reeking with opportunity, but there is enormous uncertainty, and business uncertainty, and that is feeding in to consumers.   The average person is not buying the homes they would, not spending like they would, there is a lot of money sitting on balance sheets around the country but no confidence to invest. All of that is now starting to feed in to, with the softer resources market, lower growth.   SUSAN LI:   Some people are extrapolating that maybe Wayne Swan is pushing the RBA to do more, cut more interest rates, cut borrowing costs once again.   ANDREW ROBB:   We are already at levels that Wayne Swan said after the GFC were emergency levels of interest rates, so we are down to there and it has not prompted renewed spending. I think they can come a lot further. They would have been lower, in fact, but the government has grossly overspent in response to the global financial crisis and that has kept upward pressure on interest rates for some time.   SUSAN LI:   So what do you think interest rates should be? Should they be 2.5 per cent or something like that?   ANDREW ROBB:   All I can say is at the moment they are now down at around three, the cash rate, and that is not prompting any response, so if nothing else happens on the government policy front, a lot of pressure is being put on the RBA to do all the heavy lifting.   SUSAN LI:   Well they have had to do all the heavy lifting.   ANDREW ROBB:   They have.   SUSAN LI:   So what is that the government hasn’t been doing? What more do they need to do?   ANDREW ROBB:   The thing that is really eating away at confidence is this minority government. It has led to a real growth in regulation, a lot of red tape, a lot of jumping around on policy. The carbon tax has really knocked a lot of confidence because it has made us a lot less competitive on a lot of markets.   These sorts of things have eaten away at confidence so there is money there, but it is just not being spent. Balance sheets are quite healthy in many cases, but no investment or much lower investment than there should be. So it is a crisis of confidence in many cases about the minority government.   What we need going in to the next election is a clear agenda on business certainty, business stability, and growth in jobs. Growth in jobs has been anaemic for the last couple of years.   SUSAN LI:   Is it really the government’s fault? Aren’t we going through some pretty tough times in China, in Europe and even arguably in the U.S.?   ANDREW ROBB:   All these things are contributing but we have been blessed with wonderful resources.   SUSAN LI:   But isn’t the resources boom over?   ANDREW ROBB:   The high prices are over but the quantities are going to keep going. It is a softer resources market; it was always going to get softer. So we had to really position for when things got softer. But our debt has been growing; we have put vulnerabilities – this government has put vulnerabilities – in place which is eating away at confidence.   Too much regulation, too much focus on redistribution of income and not growth, and all of that has to be addressed if we are to take advantage of what are some enormous opportunities in the region.   SUSAN LI:   Now you’re also saying that the Government – which produces a budget in the last fiscal year – you’re saying that they’re accumulating debt right now to the tune of $257 billion; but then how did they put the budget back into surplus if that was the case?   Andrew Robb:   Well, they’ve just kept on accumulating debt. Surplus – on the balance sheet, they haven’t got a surplus yet anyway – but they’re promising one, they’re promising one but they’re doing all sorts of tricky things to try and....   SUSAN LI:   Manipulative accounting?   Andrew Robb:   Yeah bringing money forward; spending forward into the previous year, taking money out into the later years; all sorts of tricks. But look they’re trying to match revenue with expenditure; but at the same time debt has been growing massively; and that’s overhanging the economy. Now we’ve got lower debt relative to other developed countries, but we’re a small open economy so we are vulnerable if commodity prices move – and they’re getting softer.   SUSAN LI:   Ok, but currently the administration in office would argue that it’s not their fault – the Australia dollar is so high as well, which is also hampering their efforts.   Andrew Robb:   Well again; that’s true - the terms of trade took the dollar high. But also, the pressure on interest rates. Because we did spend perhaps far too much coming out of the global financial crisis, it kept interest rates up; it kept the dollar high; and to some extent, we have become a safe haven in that regard.   SUSAN LI:   Ok another question for you Andrew; let me talk to you about Gina Rinehart   Andrew Robb:   Yes   SUSAN LI:   The richest person in your country, she said Australia is at risk of becoming the next Greece or Portugal. What do you think?   Andrew Robb:   Well I do think that Australia has enormous opportunities. We have; it’s all just sitting there waiting for us – because mainly of linkages in the region. But it’s not going to fall into our lap. We have to do a lot of things; we have to get a lot of simplification of regulation; we have to cut taxes; get rid of this carbon tax; rein in public spending; get some confidence back into the economy.   If we get the confidence back, and innovation and opportunity.....   SUSAN LI:   Alright Andrew good seeing you here in Hong Kong   Andrew Robb:   Great to see you   SUSAN LI:   Enjoy your trip around the city. Andrew Robb there, Shadow Finance Minister of Australia.  Andrew Robb Tue, 04 Dec 2012 03:27:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1462 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1458/The-Conversation--In-Conversation-Andrew-Robb-full-transcript.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1458 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1458&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1458/The-Conversation--In-Conversation-Andrew-Robb-full-transcript.aspx  26 November 2012, 6.09am AEST In Conversation Andrew Robb: full transcript Doug Hilton: Welcome Andrew to the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute. This conversation between me, Doug Hilton, and Andrew Robb is part of The Conversation. So Andrew, it’s been really exciting in the last few weeks and months to have research policy having a profile in the media. Tell us why you’re interested in that area? Andrew Robb: I’ve particularly started to focus on research because I have a responsibility – not only as shadow finance minister – but also I am coordinating all our policy development across 49 areas of policy in preparation for the next election. Now there have been four principles which have driven that policy development process: first, that we’re going to live within our means as a government, if we get the privilege of government. Second, we’re going to seek to reverse the nanny state, the proliferation of regulations. Third, restore a culture of personal responsibility and finally, and very importantly, look to back our strengths. And I don’t mean a hundred strengths – I mean what are the four or five things that as a country we do as well as anyone, or better than most. In that category medical research is very significant. So that has led me to look at the quality of spending – not just medical research but across the aboard. If we are going to live within our means, we haven’t got a lot of new money, that’s our expectation, if we do get to government we won’t have a lot of new money in the first few years. So how do we make the most out of what we’ve got? So the quality of the spend, the efficiency of processes which lead to the spending of government money, the priorities on which that money is spent, to me are all front and square. Doug Hilton: You mentioned medical research as one area of priority – and clearly we’re delighted about that – but there are other areas of research, development and technology where Australia also excels. Give us an idea of where you think those other areas of excellence lie? Andrew Robb: The things that we do as well as anyone and better than most and have done are, historically: resources and energy, agriculture, education and medical research. Probably there are a few things that follow-on from those but they are the four key areas. Now within that you’ve got multi-disciplinary issues. You’ve got physics and chemistry and mathematics and all these things, my argument is that just like a company or like an individual you back your strengths. So again with the limited dollars we’ve got, we should be seeking to make sure that in mathematics, and physics and chemistry and biotechnology and all the rest, that we keep an eye on those strengths. We don’t exclude everything else but a lot of the money… Douglas Hilton: It’s a prioritisation… Andrew Robb: Yes, it’s a prioritisation. I was on the board of Sinclair Knight Merz – Australia’s biggest consulting engineering group – for several years, 7,000 consulting engineers. The work I saw they were doing in resources and energy was just world-leading, spectacular innovation. The work in agriculture, especially groundwater, was world-leading. And we are known around the world, and yet not recognised often within Australia, for the great strengths that we’ve got. And all these other disciplines cluster around these strengths. Doug Hilton: So it seems strange, if you went to the US, there are different tertiary institutions that choose to focus on particular areas. If you went to Caltech or MIT, the major focus is on engineering as it crosses into biosciences and agriculture. You can go to other schools and it will all be biosciences or it’ll be the arts. Do you think we’re well served by having multiple universities that while they’re improving their rankings are still trying to be all things to all people? Andrew Robb: No, I have, for a long time been concerned about the “all things, to all people” notion which Dawkins introduced in 1990 and I think it has served the country very badly. Because again, if you go with your strengths certain universities have got great areas of expertise for all sorts of historical reasons and geographical reasons and all the rest. They should be free to maximise their contribution and their focus and not have their funding threatened and all that. And others, James Cook with tropical medicine and tropical agriculture, why should they feel a pressure to contribute to every discipline when in fact they’ve got a particular focus and expertise that they really should be focusing on. Doug Hilton: So you mentioned James Cook and I think that’s really interesting in terms of the current government’s focus on the Asian Century. You know we have a couple of institutions that are north of Brisbane, in the tropics, but only a couple. Is there an opportunity of building, whether its agriculture or a focus on tropical health, that includes those centres that are closest to Asia, that are in our tropical part of Australia? Andrew Robb: The fact is that that region in Australia from the Tropic of Capricorn up, 40% of the world’s population lives in that same zone. And yet we’ve got a million people out of 22, but an enormous opportunity, both in terms of agriculture and resources but also from a tropical medicine perspective for instance, and from an education perspective. I do feel that with the emergence now of literally billions more people – billions not millions – billions more people in the region around us with the wherewithal of a middle class. And those people are going into the middle class with disposable income, the opportunity for the first time really to pay the high cost for services and product out of Australia. We’re a high cost country, we always will be. So you need high-quality, high margins so that we can get a return on investment. That opportunity has arrived. And I do think there’s an enormous capacity across the north to capitalise on that with medical research, with education, with agriculture, with tourism, with resources. Doug Hilton: So how is that funded, obviously that sort of perspective is of particular interest to countries in our region, countries that we have a natural affinity with, countries like PNG, Indonesia the Pacific Islands. So are there areas of current spend that you see could be re-deployed to get a bigger bang for our buck if you like? Andrew Robb: I do feel that when I look, again, we have a desire to live within our means so part of that is – can we make better use of the existing resources? Foreign aid spend is, for instance, deployed all over the world in all sorts of regions. I do think a greater priority needs to be given to the islands, to PNG, to Indonesia. We have a responsibility to increase our contribution in that area and not only that, but it will help us in the longer term. Because as a country, we will then build critical mass and an expertise in that region which will become very sought after, in my view, by all parts of Asia. So I think we could be using some of that foreign aid money immediately to start to build a capability, well, enhance a capability. Doug Hilton: And a collaboration… Andrew Robb: And a collaboration. So at the pre-eminent medical research precinct in the southern hemisphere that you’re at the centre of, have you been focusing in any way at those sorts of opportunities? Doug Hilton: We see PNG a natural partner. As you know we’re celebrating the opening of our new building and we have three of the leading researchers from PNG down here to be part of that. For exactly the same reason, we see PNG as being a real area of collaboration and it sounds very paternalistic, but responsibility as well. So the idea that we can help build medical research infrastructure and develop what they already have there is really exciting and if we want to help cure diseases like malaria we need the researchers in PNG as partners. So I really like the idea that while participating in aid in places like Africa and South America is important and we have to carry our international responsibility there. If we’re not helping in the Pacific and PNG, then people are going to look at us and think we’ve been derelict. Andrew Robb: In this context, I’d like to get back to an area that I’d really like some guidance on. And that is this current situation where something between 30 and 50% of the time of our researchers, both medical and others is taken up applying for grants or peer reviewing. What can we do to reduce that because clearly there’s a lot of money being wasted requiring that huge resource to be tied up in that sort of thing. Doug Hilton: It is a huge amount of money and I was really heartened by Brian Schmidt, the Nobel Prize winner’s comments in the press recently where he said exactly the same thing that we’re experiencing in health and medical research is also being felt by the physicists and other researchers that are being funded by the ARC. So there was a really nice piece of research done out of Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane by Nick Graves and his colleagues, which basically calculated the cost to the sector in simply applying for and reviewing grants for funding. Simply accruing the resources that you need before you can even start being creative and doing experiments. And his answer was really staggering, it was, as you said about 30 to 40% of a researcher’s time but also the cost to the sector is hundreds of millions of dollars. And given the entire NHMRC budget is $750 million a year, give or take, that’s a big burden. I think part of the problem is, we’ve become very, very risk averse as a sector. We’re only funding the research that is the safest. It will seem silly to the community, but in order to get a National Health and Medical Research Council project grant funded, you really have to have done more than half of the research you say you’re going to do. So in many ways it’s a bit of a sham, you do most of the research, you understand what the answer is going to be – and that almost defeats the idea of doing research in the first place – you get the grant, then you finish it off, you get the publication then you move to the next state. So what it discourages is first, young investigators because they are in a catch 22 situation. You need grant funding to get the preliminary data in order to be compelling to get grant funding. So if you haven’t got grant funding at the start then there’s no way you can be competitive in the grant system. You know, that really hamstrings people and also is what it does, is it makes people safe. They’re going to be looking at incremental questions that will develop little gains in knowledge but safe gains in knowledge. The sort of research that we would want to try and do here is, we want to try and do research that really changes the way people think about the world and have that revolutionary impacts on disease, prevention and diagnosis. We know they’re not all going to be revolutionary but at least you want that starting point. Yes, some of them are going to be published in second and third rate journals because that’s life and research is unpredictable – they’re not all going to be blockbusters. But at least when we start out, we want it to be exciting. And I think the current funding system is encouraging people to submit multiple grants to support their groups. We calculate that to support a modest sized lab with six or eight researchers, requires each of them to put in multiple grants each year. What we should be thinking about, in my mind, is funding people for longer. Perhaps you give your young investigators five years' worth of funding to make a mark. You know people that we know are highly educated, that have served their research apprenticeship, who are passionate and articulate about what they do. Give them five years to get going. And then after five years ask them, have they come up with the goods, assess them absolutely rigorously, make them responsible for their own destiny and having reviewed them and put the flame to their bellies, then give them perhaps five or seven years in the next funding cycle. And have an agreement with them that they come up once, so they get enough research money to sustain their group and do it once rather than reviewing the same people multiple times for small ideas. I think there would be a lot of excitement about that sort of possibility and also a lot of efficiency within the money we’re already spending. Andrew Robb: And I suppose, that sort of model would also mean that a lot of researchers, even more senior ones would think if I do the job, I’ve got 12 years, that’s a career. Doug Hilton: That’s exactly right, so if you’re thinking five and then seven and the person is still doing it at the end of seven and has their fire in their belly, I’m happy to give them another seven. And I think that is what we’ve got to get to, we’ve got to get to the point where we’re not nickle and diming people in terms of review at every possible, every few months or every year. We understand that people require time to make big discoveries and make a big impact and that’s certainly our philosophy here. We want lab techs to be working together for five, ten, fifteen, twenty years that are really going to change the nation. Andrew Robb: Brian Schmidt, the Nobel Laureate, who you mentioned he talked about some of those sorts of approaches. He also raised something that I had been aware of and that is, that in the UK they’ve got rolling grants – five year contracts – that are aggregated on the basis of the collective track record of a group over the previous five years. And so it’s more of a collective and then as I understand it, allocate money within that group to where they think they can get the best bang for their buck. Doug Hilton: So it’s a devolving the responsibility to more local groups to make strategic decisions about where funding goes. I like that model as well, and what that model does also is encourage people to collaborate because with that sort of model as a biologist I realise that I now need a mathematician to wade through and make sense of all of the new data we’re generating it’s not easier for me to prioritise that sort of recruitment So I think anything that can stimulate long term collaboration where decisions are made at a local level. I think Brian is on the right track there. Andrew Robb: One other thing that I’ve observed as I go around some of the universities and other research precincts, there’s much greater involvement now in inter-disciplinary collaborative work. And you can see that turbocharging in lots of areas of research. Could you give me a sense of how quickly that’s accelerating, what’s holding it back, what we could do if we got government? Doug Hilton: So I can give you a really tangible example. So we have a mathematics department here at the Walter and Eliza Institute, Suzanne Cory set that up 15 years ago and it seemed a bit out there. At the time, it was a brave sort of an appointment. Now we have somewhere around 10-15% of our staff with a mathematics and computational science background – we think that’s underdone. You know, I sit on the scientific advisory committees of a lot of medical research institutes in Australia and the people they most want to recruit, the people the directors of other medical research institutes most want to recruit are mathematicians and computational scientists. And that’s a really interesting challenge, and I’ve been talking to people that are part of the mathematics teachers' association in Australia, that are trying to encourage kids to go into maths. I think part of the problem is describing to kids who are good at maths in high schools and at universities that there are jobs in a lot of areas for kids that are good at maths. I think that kids probably think that the only thing you can do is become an actuary or an accountant. We would love to have a conga line of kids stretching out onto Royal Parade in Melbourne knocking on the door wanting to take their maths skills and use them in biology. So I think a lot of it is talking about the options but it’s also having the right incentives, whether in secondary school or university to get the right teachers in and then to encourage the kids to stay with maths through university. So a bit of better communication by the users of those skills but also a recognition that there has to be some carrots there as well. Andrew Robb: On the issue of priorities, I like the idea very much of giving a greater opportunity, at a local level, for groups of scientists or researchers to make decisions amongst themselves about priorities. At a national level, I think we do have to support all sorts of research – basic research and applied research but also the humanities and all the rest. But what’s bothered me is at a time when we’re coming out of the global financial crisis, we’ve got a real productivity problem in the country, we’ve got a structural deficit which means there’s going to be a lot more pressure in our budget as our terms of trade come back to a more normal levels. We need desperately to see productivity jump dramatically. And yet, my public comments were really predicated on the fact that in the national priorities area we’ve seen $30 million less than we spent five years ago. So there’s been a reduction in research but also a shifting of moneys out of the national priority areas. And I would have thought productivity in the sort of areas you’re talking about, we need that discretion at a time in the country’s history. We need that time, five or ten years I assume, to shift priorities and give a focus and then when we’ve got more money, we broaden it. Doug Hilton: Juggling those competing interests is really tough and it must be great to be in government when there’s rivers of money around and there can be lots of things done, you don’t necessarily have to think as hard. I think that you’re right, you need the core groups that are performing absolutely at the pinnacle internationally, whether it’s in the humanities or the fine arts, or physics or astronomy or in medical research you need those core groups funded properly. But then in terms of where you then apply more resources, do that in a more strategic way. And I think that allows you to keep the expertise in some of these esoteric areas, but also use a greater share of the funding that is available for things that are going to be strategic priorities because they’re areas of strength that we want to develop. So I think it’s getting that mix right – that’s no easy task but I think there are ways of doing it. And there’s a lot of, even among the areas you’ve outlined, there’s a lot of areas of overlap. And in my own area, genomics is the big hot technology that we want to use, clearly the same is true in agriculture, the same is true of environment. So I think there’s a way of funding areas that are not just within our priority areas that you’ve identified, but across those areas. And I think that’s really exciting. Andrew, you mentioned that the attractiveness of devolving some of the responsibility for funding decisions, more locally, away from Canberra if you like. And that is something that certainly would be exciting, as I go around the country I can see 8 or 10 areas, 8 or 10 geographic locations that are clearly doing, collectively, fabulous research. In Victoria, we probably have three, Parkville campus, around the main campus at Melbourne Uni, south of the river down at Monash including the Alfred Hospital Campus, and then up at La Trobe around the biosciences and the agricultural area. IF you got to NSW, there’s probably the same sort of thing, there’s some great campuses around the University of Sydney but also UNSW. Perth is developing campuses and then we have the tropical campuses if you like, the tropical precincts around James Cook, Cairns, some in Darwin. I think it’s really exciting to be able to recognise that there are these foci where science and technology is really being done at an international level and support those and make it easier for people in those campuses to make strategic decisions. And to link with each other. Andrew Robb: So just to finish up perhaps, I think you’re right. I think the cluster approach is exciting and holds potential for enormous advantages for us. But what, if anything, is holding it back? Doug Hilton: So I think there’s one or two structural things. So the first structural thing is around indirect costs and infrastructure. So there are multiple schemes that poorly support the indirect costs of research and cross-subsidies. It’s Byzantine in its complexity. The universities thought that they’d tick the box with government’s Strategic Research Excellence funding (SRE) which would have taken universities to 60 cents in the dollar of funding to cover indirect costs and infrastructure. But that was put on the back burner as part of the Mid-Year Economic Forecast (MYEFO). For medical research institutes we’re probably 30 to 40 cents short in every dollar of direct research funding that we get. And what that drives is people looking over their shoulder when they want to do a collaboration. Do I want to collaborate with the guys at the university because that’s going to cost me 40 cents in the dollar, I’m going to have to find another 40 cents for every dollar I get federally from the National Health and Medical Research Council. If we could have a simple transparent system where are researcher got a dollar, and the institution got 60 cents, audit the fact that it’s 60 cents, do it rigorously. It seems to be 60 cents almost every where you go in the world. You could have a system that funded the indirect costs of research in a transparent manner, you would drive a collaborative culture. It would enable us also to grow the pie because the philanthropy that we try to get as a medical research institute, I can tell you what, the little old ladies living in Baldwin are much more excited about funding cancer research than they are an accountant in our finance department. So you know, I would guarantee if the government can find a way of funding the indirect costs, as they of in the US for the national institutes, I can grow the pie more. Andrew Robb: Let’s see if we can have a go at it. Doug Hilton: Sounds like a great idea Andrew. Thanks very much. Andrew Robb: Thanks Doug.   Andrew Robb Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:37:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1458 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1455/Our-financial-systems-missing-link--developing-a-retail-corporate-bond-market.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1455 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1455&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1455/Our-financial-systems-missing-link--developing-a-retail-corporate-bond-market.aspx Address to The University of Melbourne, Faculty of Business and Economics Introduction The need to develop the retail corporate bond market is widely supported by Government, ASIC and market participants. Despite this apparent consensus, progress has proven to be very slow. In March 2009 Tabcorp issued a 5 year retail senior bond at the height of the GFC, at a time when banks were only lending for three years. This was the first vanilla retail bond since Telecom Bonds in the 1980s/90s. However since then there have been less than five large listed issues. The Johnson report of November 2009 cited the need for an active retail corporate bond market and release of the Treasury consultation paper occurred in December 2011. There has been little public development since. At this rate of primary issuance a deep and liquid market will never be developed. A deep and liquid retail corporate bond market would provide access to capital for Australian corporations, lower risk and less volatile investment options for investors looking for long-term security and predictable income streams, such as self-managed superannuation funds, and create space on bank balance sheets to support Australian businesses, particularly small and medium business. NAB’s Rick Sawers recently said: “If I arrived from outer space this morning I could probably buy shares online by 5pm today, but it is much more difficult to buy a bond.” The retail corporate bond market should be comparable with the equities market. It should be as quick and as simple to purchase bonds as equities. It makes no sense to have very simple access to one type of investment, equity, yet have almost no access to lower risk corporate bonds. A transparent system in which the two types of asset can be compared and assessed side by side is needed. The Coalition understands that until there is a comparable market, government has not fulfilled its role and once there is, government should allow the market to function. The recent step of creating a market for Commonwealth Government Securities (CGS’s) is a useful start, and will allow retail investors to buy and sell CGS’s, at least for diversity purposes. However, with a coupon at 3 per cent Government bonds can’t compete with Government-backed bank term deposits at 5 per cent. Elmer Funke Kupper of the ASX has, not surprisingly, stepped in and said that the ASX will soon offer a platform for retail investors to trade government bonds. These steps are in the right direction, however we need to do much more, much more quickly. Stephen Bartholomeusz wrote last December that: “If we are still talking about this issue next December, the failure to attempt to create a market that has been talked about for decades may not just represent a missed opportunity to capitalise on the risk aversion and strong appetite of retail investors for high-quality yields but a failure to create some insurance against the risk posed to the stability of the domestic system by the disturbing developments in debt markets offshore.” This is right and progress has been far too slow. Government must act now to remove the barriers and facilitate and encourage the development of this market. It must support the development of bonds as an asset class comparable to and competitive with property, shares and cash/term deposits. And to do this it needs to deal with the bureaucracy and red tape that hold this development back and take much too long. Quality regulation is the key issue. Better regulation, not more regulation, can help remove barriers and create over time a competitive low cost market that is a genuine and viable alternative to issuing overseas whilst providing investors with greater choice of investments. The Coalition understands that the market needs to have confidence in regulatory settings and will avoid piecemeal change, constant change and change for the sake of change. If the Coalition gets the privilege of Government we will examine the regulations that influence both supply and demand, to look for ways to stimulate the development of the retail corporate bond market. These include: 1.Examining the scope for greater use of a short form prospectus – because prospectus requirements to issue corporate bonds may sometimes make issuing them unduly onerous relative to issuing equities to the retail market; 2.Utilising the continuous disclosure regime within the ASX – because the inability to use this existing system increases regulation and increases the documentation requirements unnecessarily; 3.Reviewing the director's liability for prospectus in line with the COAG review of director’s liability and investigating the scope to align it with the current requirements for short form prospectuses and cleansing notices; 4.Improving accessibility - because just as issuing of retail corporate bonds should be easier, the purchase of retail corporate bonds should be simpler; and, 5.Educating the market – because there is inadequate knowledge of corporate bonds among market participants and potential participants. These steps will create the framework for a retail corporate bond market that is comparable with other asset classes, particularly the equities market. The current situation Australia’s retail corporate bond market is severely under-developed and has a concentration of issuers and relatively short maturities. This underdevelopment is highlighted by the fact that the retail corporate bond market is dominated by subordinated issuance and very rarely sees senior vanilla issuance. Stephen Bartholomeusz has gone so far as to describe the state of the bond market as a “glaring deficiency in what is otherwise an exceptionally sophisticated financial system.” The Wholesale market, being mostly institutional investors and investors that meet the Corporations Act definition of a professional investor, have had significant access to corporate bonds, whilst access for a retail investor has been limited. The Global Financial Crisis (GFC) had a profound impact on global capital markets. In the post GFC environment demands of and for capital have changed. For banks Basel III liquidity reforms have set new standards. The Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR), which aims to ensure that authorised deposit-taking institutions (ADI’s) have sufficient high-quality liquid assets to survive liquidity stress for a period of 30 days, and the Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR), which aims to provide more stable sources of funding, are challenging in countries such as Australia in which the amount of eligible assets on issuance is limited.  Whilst banks should continue to have sufficient capital and credit risk appetite to support corporate lending the requirements for funding loom as a source of increased constraint on bank balance sheets. In this context some of the financing needs of the corporate and infrastructure sectors may be better held within a retail corporate bond market. Indeed, given the expected constraints on bank balance sheets, a retail corporate bond market may prove vital in order to meet business funding needs when credit growth returns. The post GFC context has highlighted Australia’s lack of any considerable retail corporate bond market. From 2008 until late 2011 only a handful of issues came to market and these were mostly the domestic banks. However demand has gone in the opposite direction. The underperformance of equity investments and increasing number of investors requiring more conservative and/or diverse investment portfolios has led to greater demand for retail corporate bonds, driven by financial planners and the self-managed super industry. The sheer volumes and growth within the self-managed super industry - self-managed superannuation fund balances already exceed $478 billion and are growing at over $30 billion per annum - make a compelling case for the development of a deeper, more liquid and sustainable retail corporate bond market. This is because SMSF’s and other investors with long-term horizons are looking for security of returns and diversity. This makes sense when you consider that Australian shares are still more than a third off their 2007 highs. However while the investors are interested, issuers are not providing sufficient supply to meet the demand for corporate bonds. Although the banks are large issuers in the retail bond market it is principally for non-senior or subordinated issues. The anticipated increased cost of borrowing within the Australian banking system under Basel III will mean that the capital markets are likely to be more attractive as a financing market. This may help with the development of a domestic retail corporate bond market, however it is time for government to act quickly to facilitate the rapid development of this market in order to support and improve the Australian financial system. Why does Australia need a deep, liquid and sustainable retail corporate bond market? All stakeholders in the Australian financial sector will benefit from the development of a deep, liquid and sustainable retail corporate bond market. Issuers For issuers simpler access to the local market should mean, particularly over time as scale develops, cheaper and easier to access funding. However at the moment while companies raise equities on the domestic market, they tend to go offshore to issue corporate bonds. This is because offshore markets, such as the USD 144a market, are much deeper and more liquid, despite dearer documentation. Over the last decade, the corporate loan market has more than doubled, from $218 billion in January 2002 to $486 billion in December 2011 (with a high of $530 billion in November 2008), and usage by Australia of other countries’ savings via Australian corporate offshore issuance has tripled, from $41 billion to $138 billion. Domestically we have seen a recent wave of blue-chip corporate issuance, however this has been available to wholesale investors only. And, even when there is retail access, liquidity limits the capacity for issuance to be freely traded on a market platform; for instance ASX listed turnover in 2011 was only $200 million of debt securities, including hybrids. For 2012 year-to-date we have seen approximately $13 billion issued in the listed hybrid/bond market, compared to around $11.4 billion in the wholesale corporate bond market, of which $1.75 billion comes from BHP and Telstra alone. Although there has been growth in domestic wholesale issuance it is clear that the majority of debt raising is taking place offshore. In 2012 to date there has been approximately US$31 billion of bond issuance completed by Australian corporates in offshore markets, and this excludes several very large issues by BHP and Rio Tinto. Australian companies have been accessing US and Asian markets and have been issuing senior as well as subordinated/high yield bonds and hybrids. This debt has been bought by a large range of institutional investors. Investors For investors the benefits of diversity of offerings and stability of returns are very appealing. There is demand for a new investment class for retail investors who are looking to diversify their investments and will accept a lower return for less risk. And most advisors will tell an investor that corporate bonds should be an important part of any investment or superannuation portfolio. Yet a recent OECD report found that Australian superannuation funds, with 50 per cent average allocation to shares, were the highest in the world. In contrast only 14 per cent of the funds are allocated to bonds, far lower than Japan, 56 per cent, the Netherlands, 50 per cent, and even the UK at 35 per cent and US at 27 per cent. This low proportion of superannuation investment is even more marked when it comes to self-managed super funds, where a meagre 1 per cent is invested in corporate bonds. Compulsory superannuation and savings from a prosperous economy delivered large pools of cash in funds under management in Australia. These investments suffered during the GFC. Many retirees suffered significant capital losses. This was exacerbated by the increased risk associated with the focus of Australia’s superannuation sector on equities. With no income to top up account balances, investors are now looking for different ways to structure their investment portfolios. Post-GFC, retail investors now have a greater interest in less volatile returns, safer regular income streams, and more diversified investment portfolios. Corporate bonds provide investors with greater income and capital certainty than equity investments, as well as lower volatility of returns. In a post GFC context retail corporate bonds would be a welcome addition to equities. Increased liquidity will also promote institutional investor participation. Many Australian fixed interest institutional investors currently participate in the USD 144a market and hedge the asset back into AUD, the reverse of Australian companies that issue USD then hedge the liability back into AUD. A liquid retail bond market in Australia in many instances could remove the need for both our investors and companies to hedge. The benefits of promoting institutional participation will be increased retail investor confidence in the market, and increased issuer confidence in tapping funds. Retail and institutional participation is complementary and will assist with liquidity, confidence and the efficient pricing of risk. Banks The benefits for banks are important. Prior to the GFC Australian banks had a heavy reliance on international wholesale financial markets to fund economic growth, particularly short-term funding. As the domestic retail corporate bond market develops the potentially improved ability of banks to attract more domestic funding would reduce their reliance on offshore funding. Research by the world’s largest bond trader PIMCO found that, in dollar terms, Commonwealth Government Securities were our second biggest export in 2011-12 at $58 billion, emphasising the government’s reliance on debt. Our determination to start paying off Commonwealth net debt will of course see a commensurate reduction in the issuance of government bonds. Consequently, the emergence over time of a substantive retail corporate bond market would further diversify our financial system by providing ready access to an asset class with many similar characteristics to Commonwealth Government Securities, which are currently 85 per cent foreign owned. In the context of the increased constraints on bank balance sheets discussed earlier this opportunity for diversification could assist Australian institutions seeking to comply with Basel III regulations that have direct implications for funding and liquidity.  Another benefit, that would assist both banks and businesses, is the space that might potentially be freed up on balance sheets to support small and medium sized enterprises. Business This balance sheet capacity for banks to support small and medium businesses would benefit businesses by assisting them to get greater access to capital. Traditionally it has been easier for corporations to raise capital with equity than with retail corporate bonds, particularly for companies that are not rated investment grade. The appropriate development of a deep, liquid and sustainable retail corporate bond market would support business by providing companies with a competitive alternative to bank funding and equity. What does the Coalition propose? The Coalition understands that there is a role for government in facilitating the development of a deep, liquid and sustainable retail corporate bond market, but not in running it. This means that the market should be supported to develop adequate depth and liquidity to function efficiently, however it also means that the market must be left to function. There are barriers, such as low participation, execution risk for issuers and onerous conditions, and at present there are advantages in issuing offshore. However there are also a number of things government can potentially do to assist the development of the market. Moves to allow retail investors to trade CGS’s have helped to create momentum. The ASX’s continued commitment to providing a platform for traded retail corporate bonds in Australia continues this momentum. The time for government to capitalise on this momentum, the market conditions and the growing demand from issuers, banks, investors and businesses is now. The Coalition understands that the time is now and understands that regulation is the key issue. Better regulation, not more regulation, can help remove barriers and create a competitive low cost market that is a genuine and viable alternative to issuing overseas. From the beginning Government must work with all stakeholders, from originators, issuers, investors, trading houses and advisors to regulators and ratings agencies. The Coalition will ensure that the process of developing the retail corporate bond market is comprehensive and consultative and that the best outcome for Australian businesses and investors is achieved. As the retail corporate bond market develops comprehensive consultation will continue in order to make certain that the market attains the depth and liquidity to function effectively as quickly as possible. I said earlier that if the Coalition gets the privilege of Government we will examine the regulations that influence both supply and demand, to look for ways to stimulate the development of the retail corporate bond market. I will now go through some of the areas for possible change in greater detail: 1. Examining the scope for greater use of a short form prospectus – this is important because prospectus requirements to issue corporate bonds may sometimes make them unduly onerous relative to issuing equities to the retail market. Corporate bonds have an additional layer of protection compared to equities, as holders of bonds rank ahead of equity in the event of insolvency. The increased disclosure requirements are therefore arguably counter-intuitive, at least in some cases. If you look at any prospectus for a debt security, be it a corporate bond or a hybrid security, the vast bulk of the prospectus is taken up describing what you are buying. In the wholesale markets banks and companies establish debt programmes under which all terms of their debt are established and each new issue of debt is based. We will investigate the scope for this concept to be utilised for retail bonds, with issuers establishing a set of terms that would be a platform that then covers subsequent issuance across a range of maturities and interest rate structures. Essentially for equity issues this is the position in the market now – neither rights issues nor placements require a prospectus. As retail corporate bond issues have lower risk than equity, there may be scope, where a debt programme has been established, for a term sheet to replace existing prospectus requirements – or, where there is a need for additional information due to complexity or risk, for a simpler short-form prospectus to be used. For issuers, changes in this area could potentially reduce repetitive administration, simplify the process, reduce the preparation time required and significantly reduce the cost of issuing – subject to appropriate, strong protection for investors always being retained. For investors, changes might assist with informed decision making by enabling simpler comparison of bonds and providing easier to understand documentation. 2.Utilising the continuous disclosure regime within the ASX – this is important because the inability to use this existing system increases regulation and increases the additional, repetitive, documentation requirements for new issuers. Every corporation listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) must comply with continuous disclosure requirements under the Corporations Act. This ensures that the market is advised of information and events as they occur. Rather than creating additional reporting requirements, there may be efficiencies and benefits in prospective retail corporate bond issuers who are already required to comply with continuous disclosure requirements being able to utilise the information they have already provided to the marketplace. The Coalition, whilst recognising the different risks associated with corporate bonds, will examine the scope to utilise existing reporting requirements where possible, rather than using separate and additional requirements and documentation. For issuers this may have the potential to reduce duplication in reporting and reduce the costs associated with issuing. For investors, up-to-date information would ensure timely understanding and information and a more equal knowledge of investments due to having the same access to information. In addition all market participants stand to benefit from the good governance imposed by continuous disclosure and the likelihood that it will assist the market to efficiently discover and set prices. 3.Review the director's liability for prospectus in line with the COAG review of director’s liability and investigate the scope to align it with the current requirements for short form prospectuses and cleansing notices. Consistent with the COAG Reform process regarding the personal liability of directors there should be a review of the existing director’s deemed liability regime for retail corporate bonds. Provided any reforms in this area could be undertaken without compromising the integrity of the system and investor protections, any such reforms would have the potential to simplify issuing and reduce costs. For investors this could make retail bond issues more attractive and lead to a broader range of issuers potentially utilising the market. 4.Improving accessibility – this is important because just as issuing of retail corporate bonds must be easier, the purchase of retail corporate bonds must be simpler. The goal must be that investors can access the market as easily as other markets, such as equities. This should include access through trading platforms that can be used on laptop, tablet and mobile phone. With a growing number of investors looking to take a more active role in managing their portfolios, they must have access to the market. Furthermore there may be benefit in providing greater clarity around the definition of a ‘sophisticated investor’ under the Corporations Act. For issuers increased participation will enhance liquidity. For investors, improved accessibility will allow access to new investments that can provide certainty of income stream, lower capital risk and longer duration. For many investors, particularly those approaching retirement, these benefits are potentially substantial. 5.Educating the market – this is important because there is inadequate retail corporate bond market knowledge among market participants and potential participants.  The Coalition will task ASIC to work closely with the industry to develop a comprehensive education campaign to encourage and facilitate better knowledge and understanding of this asset class. The approach to education should be collaborative. It is necessary to improve retail investors’ understandings of all aspects of corporate bonds including terminology (such as duration, yield and coupon), features, the benefits and risks, the capital structure and where corporate bonds rank in relation to other assets. For issuers education will help with understanding of the market and the role the retail corporate bond market could play as a new source of funding, including longer term funding and the potential for this to reduce refinancing risk. For issuers education will lead to greater understanding of the investment and therefore reduce the risk of purchasing an unsuitable investment. Conclusion The Coalition understands that the issues I have just discussed are important areas of potential reform for Government which can see the market grow and develop. Many other aspects are up to the market to progress, such as relative pricing, fees, tenor, volume, etc Importantly the Coalition will consult with stakeholders before making any changes. As the market develops additional issues will doubtless be raised which may require further consideration by Government. For example, one area raised by some in the financial market relates to the scope and merit of facilitating existing “seasoned” wholesale bonds being moved to the listed debt platform, so they can be traded by retail and wholesale investors interchangeably – similar to the approach being taken for Commonwealth Government Securities. It is suggested that this would allow a large number of wholesale bonds to be available to retail investors, thereby creating better price transparency, more liquidity and a good foundation for future primary issuance, versus trying to build the market one new issue at a time. These and other issues would be matters for future consideration. In the meantime much can be done quickly to breath real life into the development of a sustainable retail corporate bond market. The Coalition stands ready to take such action. Andrew Robb Wed, 21 Nov 2012 03:08:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1455 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1456/Transcript--Interview-with-Peter-Switzer--Sky-News-Business.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1456 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1456&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1456/Transcript--Interview-with-Peter-Switzer--Sky-News-Business.aspx   TRANSCRIPT INTERVIEW WITH PETER SWITZER SKY NEWS BUSINESS   Topics: Labor’s poor economic record, including record debt.   E&OE…………………………………………………………………………………….       PETER SWITZER:   One of the government’s current economic embarrassments might be their failure to produce a budget surplus and the Coalition’s Shadow Finance Minister, Andrew Robb, has pondered what excuse Finance Minister Penny Wong will have to dream up to explain it. Mr Robb joins us to evaluate the future of the government’s budget surplus. Andrew, thanks for joining us. ANDREW ROBB:   My pleasure, Peter. PETER SWITZER:   Now, I know you would love the government to be creating a budget surplus because you are a man who loves economic responsibility, but you don’t think it is going to happen, do you?     ANDREW ROBB:   I don’t for one second. I see, to be honest, no viable plan to do anything about their current situation. Just look what at what has happened. They have spent now $173 billion more than they have raised in revenue. They have had the four biggest deficits in our history.   They have a debt now of over a quarter of a trillion dollars in gross terms, and they have got $120 billion of promises that are unfunded, how can anyone believe that anything is going to change?   In fact, some of the independent commentators, many of whom are former Treasury officials, are now starting to bell the cat and say that there are in-built government structural deficits of the order of $20 to $25 billion for the next four or five years.   There is no joy on the horizon. If we do get the privilege of government, I think we have got some hard times ahead.   PETER SWITZER:   So what is the excuse you think Penny Wong is going to come up with? Do you think she is going to say this is all happening because the economy is not growing fast enough, and could she blame the Reserve Bank for that?   ANDREW ROBB:   All that they are really interested in is getting through the next election. So, I think they will continue what I believe to be a calculated deception.   If you go back two years before the last election they put out forecasts for revenue which were just beyond the pale, ridiculous. Everyone knew they were too ambitious but it enabled them to say they would be in a surplus by 2012/13, enable them to say we won’t have a net debt getting above $94 billion.   Of course, it is only two years since. Since then, we have had two of the biggest deficits in our history and we have got a situation where the net debt is at $150 billion and some sources saying it will go to $214 billion within the next three or four years.   PETER SWITZER:   But really, Andrew, the most important thing for them is, do they actually crack the surplus for this year, because as you and I know, they have talked about this being a test, in a sense, for their economic credibility.   Do you think that they might go to an early election to avoid the embarrassment of having to fess up to not actually cracking a surplus?   ANDREW ROBB:   Firstly, they won’t go to an election unless they felt that they were in a position to win the election. If things don’t change dramatically, they won’t be going before the next budget in that sense; that is a big issue you have got to consider.   Secondly, they have started to walk away from the surplus in the Parliament. They have started to say they are confident about the forecast but they will no longer guarantee a surplus. They are playing with words again as they are very good at. That is their forte really.   What they will do is say that ‘unforseen circumstances outside of their control’ have meant that they won’t get to the surplus despite all the money shuffling that they have done. They have literally pushed nearly $12 billion out of the 2012/13 year which should be in there.   So really, there is a deficit of some $12 billion to start with. But secondly, they will make forecasts again that suggest that the next year will be achievable, or the year after.   Now this has been their technique endlessly, to predict rosy forecasts and prudent spending, and when that does not occur, they explain it away by events overseas. And they will try that trick again, but I think that is wearing thin with the population.   PETER SWITZER:   Andrew, do you argue that what they did when the GFC hit, in increasing spending, and effectively keeping unemployment under 6%, which was a shock to a lot of economists in this country, do you think that was wrong?   ANDREW ROBB:   I do. I think what has been greatly underestimated was the power at the time, not only of inheriting an economy which was in much better shape than all of the other developed world, and with no debt, in fact $70 billion of net assets. Not only did they have that as a sort of bulwark, but also the automatic stabilisers.   You might recall, Peter, that the first quarter of 2009 we had the biggest trade surplus in our history because the dollar dropped to 60 cents. At the same time, interest rates came off 3.5%. Those two factors alone really restored enormous liquidity in to our market, put a lot of money in people’s pockets, and a lot of the spending came in the year or two after that, it was too much after the event, and the quality of that spending was appalling.   I think they grossly overspent – something in the order of $60 billion over spent. That has put pressure on interest rates ever since. It has kept the dollar up, that is why manufacturing is struggling. The government has made a big contribution to a lot of the problems outside of the resource sector because of that wanton spending and the continued deficits.   Macroeconomics, headed by a former Treasury forecaster, said that if they had not spent like they were drunken sailors, we would be in surplus last year by $15 billion. I do think that a lot of the problems that we have faced, and the challenges, have been of the fact that they have spent like there is no tomorrow.   As I said at the outset, they have still spent, today, $172 billion more than they have raised in the five years that they have been in office. Talk about fiscal discipline – it’s a joke!   PETER SWITZER:   If you were given the privilege to control the reins of finance in this country, would you cut back spending pretty substantially? And if so, by how much? And what would be the key targeted areas?   ANDREW ROBB:   Firstly, we have still got the books open, because we are still potentially nearly 12 months from an election. For a government like this, given some of the disasters that they have perpetrated, 12 months is a long time.   And I will just make one observation – in the last month we have had 2,100 people arrive by boat. Now every boat is another $13 million. If that is repeated for the next eleven months, that means an extra 25,000 boat people. Now that will blow the budget out, without anything else, by several billion dollars over and above what they have forecast will be spent in that area alone.   So, we cannot close our books until much closer to the election when we really know the situation. Once that happens we have got to make the assessment. We will live within our means. We have set ourselves a principle, a cast iron principle, that we will as a government, live within our means.   That will mean cuts in programs. What the size is we are not sure yet, but I will just make the point, it is not just cutting government expenditure, it is as much what else you do. It is the quality of the spend that is also very important. The pink batts issue – that cost billions of dollars, overran by billions of dollars, but it actually cost a lot of very legitimate businesses their business, because of the way that they mismanaged that spend. Now that has happened in so many different cases.   That is why the commission of audit that we talk about, the first thing we will do, a commission of audit, along with removing the carbon tax and the mining tax, that commission of audit will help us identify a lot of areas where the quality of spend, adding up to tens of billions of dollars in many cases, can possibly be tackled by ourselves.   PETER SWITZER:   The thing that worries me, Andrew, is the carbon tax, which has numerous impacts on particularly small businesses around the country – you don’t know what kind of cost will be involved in unravelling the carbon tax. So you might actually end up with a surprise big bill that could actually stifle some of the cut backs that you make in other areas.   ANDREW ROBB:   We have done a lot of work on this. The carbon tax was introduced with a piece of legislation and it can be removed with a piece of legislation. They haven’t moved to a trading situation – that is not for another couple of years, so there isn’t the issue of those long term liabilities and any potential compensation.   It is simply a new tax that has been bought in and we can remove a new tax. It will remove costs immediately across the board, and very significantly. They said a ten per cent increase in costs from the carbon tax; we should see a comparable downward pressure on prices as a consequence of removing that carbon tax.   What sort of good start would that be to confidence? There is a crisis of confidence in this country at the moment. Not just because they have introduced or increased 27 taxes, but because they keep changing the rules. If some adults can take over and start to make decisions in a measured, stable way, and when we do take decisions insist and ensure that they last for five years or so, that people can get a return on that risk, investment without the prospect of rules changing mid-stream.   The sovereign risk issue is just killing this country, killing investment. There is a lot of money on balance sheets as you would well know Peter, but companies are saying to me time and time again, we are not going to invest until we have got some certainty that the rules are not going to change, and that means until an election occurs.   PETER SWITZER:   You mentioned debt earlier. It is about ten percent of GDP right now. What was it when they took over? And, how serious do you think 10 per cent of GDP is?   ANDREW ROBB: I   t was much lower. Wayne Swan was saying six or seven percent. Well, there was no debt when they took over. We had $70 billion of net assets when they took over. We were a country free of debt.   Can you believe – now we are back at a quarter of a trillion dollars in gross debt, and that is 10 percent, but if you add the state debt on top of it, of course, we had a whole lot of Labor administrations - $85 billion alone in Queensland; you add the state debt and we are up around 20 per cent of GDP. I know, when I ran a business, the first 20 or 30 per cent you can control the level of debt. After that, the debt starts to control you.   It took someone like Macroeconomics, one of the independent forecasters – they are saying that gross debt could go well over their $300 billion ceiling, and as a consequence we are starting to get into more dangerous and vulnerable territory with the level of our debt.   It is prudent, as any family will tell you, as any company will tell you, you have got to keep debt at a manageable level. The way this government is spending and growing that debt – Swan was just two years ago saying six per cent was a good figure. Now he is saying ten percent is a good figure. Where is it going to finish with this fellow?   PETER SWITZER:   Andrew, thanks for joining us on the program.   ANDREW ROBB:   My pleasure, thanks Peter.     Andrew Robb Tue, 20 Nov 2012 22:31:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1456 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1453/Transcript--Interview-with-Ross-Greenwood--2GB-Sydney.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1453 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1453&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1453/Transcript--Interview-with-Ross-Greenwood--2GB-Sydney.aspx  TRANSCRIPT INTERVIEW WITH ROSS GREENWOOD 2GB SYDNEY   Topics: Labor’s debt burden   E&OE…………………………………………………………………………………….   ROSS GREENWOOD:   Let’s go now to the Shadow Finance Minister, Andrew Robb, is on the line. Many thanks for your time Andrew.   ANDREW ROBB:   My pleasure, Ross.   ROSS GREENWOOD:   This report from Macroeconomics – should we put credibility in this? Is this done by people who have got a track record?   ANDREW ROBB:   They have indeed. In fact, the team at Macroeconomics is led by a former Treasury and Finance official, very highly credentialed; they have now been out there doing this sort of thing for a long time. Their clientele are largely private companies, well public companies but the work is private.   So they have got a long list of very reputable companies that are looking for an independent point of view, and this 85 page report is the sort of report they give on a regular basis, as I understand, to their clients.   ROSS GREENWOOD:   The interesting point about this is that after the mid-year economic and fiscal outlook (MYEFO), the Treasurer, here on this program, indicated that he is absolutely and utterly committed to his forecast out in 2020/21, that the federal government’s debt of around right now $145billion will be paid off.   Now, according to this particular piece of work from Macroeconomics, they believe that rather than running down; in fact, that the deficits are going to continue to rise and the federal government’s debt will continue to rise, they claim, by 2015/16, to more than $215 billion. Again, is this something we should be concerned about?   ANDREW ROBB:   It just beggars belief that there could be such a discrepancy but let’s put the $214 billion aside for one second, Ross. Even if you take the promise, the commitment that the Treasurer made on your program about the forecast of reducing debt to zero that was in the recent half-yearly report, they said debt would be zero by 2020/21, but they said it would be at $138 billion five years before.   Now that means in the last five years up until 2020/21, to reduce that debt to zero would mean surpluses of around $28 billion a year for each one of those five years. Now the highest surplus in our country’s history was under the Howard/Costello government of $19.6 billion.   So what they are saying is, having delivered the four biggest deficits in our history over the last four years, still yet to deliver any surplus, they are saying that the last five years of this decade, they will produce the five biggest surpluses in our history. And not just the biggest, but the biggest by a country mile.   So, this is a treasurer who has consistently given rosy forecasts of revenue levels and good forecasts of prudent spending outcomes, and yet you find subsequently they’re way out of whack. When reality comes around, they have missed the mark monumentally. And how can we believe even forecasts out 12 months now?   It’s a political tactic in my view that they have consistently now for several years, overstated massively the revenue forecasts, and understated how much they are going to spend, just to get by in the political moment. Then later on, when things don’t turn out as they predicted, they seek forgiveness, rather than asking permission up-front, and saying woe is me, the rest of the world has caused these problems.   ROSS GREENWOOD:   The interesting point about this Andrew Robb, is that all things going according to the polls as they currently stand, you will be the finance minister by this time next year. You will now confront these holes without trying to send the economy into a tail spin, in to a recession by cutting it back savagely to achieve surpluses that you believe are sustainable. It is going to be very difficult to do terribly much about this.   ANDREW ROBB:   First and foremost you have got to set an objective of living within our means. Firstly you should put out in the public arena what is the true state of the books. We have been asking this government to get Treasury to release what they think is the structural deficit. In other words, what are the spending commitments that we have got which go on and on for years and years, against which declining revenue will be required to meet the cost of.   That’s why Microeconomics have belled the cat really, they are saying that revenue is going to be nothing like what Swan is forecasting, therefore debt is going to continue to rise, not fall, and rise quite dramatically.   ROSS GREENWOOD:   Where do we end up with things such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme? Where would we end up with many of the reforms that had been suggested to education by that Gonski review? These are after all unfunded spending promises the government has made. They ultimately would hit they budget and you would have to make a decision as to whether they could be afforded or not.   ANDREW ROBB:   That’s the problem. They are promising all sorts of things out in the never-never. What you have just talked about adds up to $120billion worth of unfunded promises and they are big commitments year in year out. That’s why we need this commission of audit.   If we do get the privilege of government, the first thing we will do is not only look at how much is being spent, and how much is really being received in revenue, but also the quality of much of that spending. So much waste is going on. Then we have got to look at the merit of a lot of the programs. Some things will have to go – whole programs will have to go in some cases.   If we do discover that what Macroeconomics is saying is in fact true, and Macroeconomics are people who were not so long ago in Treasury doing these calculations, so they know where all the holes are and they know all the procedures. What they said in the report, and I think you read it out, was that the government has consistently taken the most advantageous forecasts, and they haven’t taken conservative forecasts.   If you just take conservative forecasts about revenue, you end up with debt escalating over $200 billion, which would really start to put us in a dangerous zone in terms of debt levels.    ROSS GREENWOOD:  Andrew Robb, the Shadow Finance Minister, appreciate your time.   ANDREW ROBB: Thanks Ross.   Andrew Robb Tue, 13 Nov 2012 04:30:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1453 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1452/LABORS-DEBT-TIME-BOMB-EXPOSED.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1452 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1452&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1452/LABORS-DEBT-TIME-BOMB-EXPOSED.aspx   M  E  D  I  A     R  E  L  E  A  S  E   Sunday, 11 November 2012   LABOR'S DEBT TIME BOMB EXPOSED The Gillard government has lost control of its record debt, and Labor's calculated deception of Australians about its ability to pay it off has been exposed. Based on explosive new independent budget analysis, led by a former Treasury and Finance official at Macroeconomics and obtained by the Coalition, Labor's net debt will hit an extraordinary $214.2 billion in 2015-16. Yet according to the government's latest budget update (MYEFO), net debt will be reduced to $138 billion in 2015-16, before "returning to zero in 2020-21", which is totally unbelievable.  Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction, Andrew Robb, said: "Just two years ago in the lead up to the 2010 federal election Labor claimed net debt would peak at just $94.4 billion or 6.4 per cent of GDP. This analysis shows that net debt will be in fact 12.4 per cent of GDP in just three years time.   "Time and again this government has forecast rosy revenue levels and prudent spending outcomes, only to be subsequently found to be way out. This forecasting deception is a very deliberate political tactic. "It explains the calculated nonsense from the likes of Penny Wong about Labor's so-called ‘fiscal discipline’ as government spending continues to far outweigh revenue and undermine the budget’s underlying structural health. In fact over the last five years Labor has spent $172 billion more than revenue raised."    Under Labor's current settings Macroeconomics found that the budget will be in deficit each and every year through to 2021-22, including this year (2012-13) by $7 billion, followed by deficits of $17 billion (13-14) and $23 billion (14-15).   Mr Robb said under this scenario Labor’s net debt will just keep rising leaving us increasingly vulnerable in an uncertain global economic environment. "Labor's debt time bomb is the dead cat on the table and confirms the unacceptable risk a re-elected Gillard government presents to Australia's economy," he said.   Andrew Robb Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:38:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1452 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1447/Transcript--Sky-News-Showdown-with-Mark-Latham-and-Michael-Kroger.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1447 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1447&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1447/Transcript--Sky-News-Showdown-with-Mark-Latham-and-Michael-Kroger.aspx TRANSCRIPT INTERVIEW WITH MARK LATHAM AND MICHAEL KROGER SKY NEWS SHOWDOWN   Topics: Maxine McKew’s book, Budget deficit, Coalition policies   E&OE…………………………………………………………………………………….     MICHAEL KROGER: I’m here with my co-host and former Labor leader, Mark Latham and joining us in the Canberra studio now is the Shadow Minister for Finance and Member for Goldstein, Andrew Robb. Andrew Robb, welcome.   ANDREW ROBB: Thanks very much Michael.   MARK LATHAM: Andrew, there is nothing scholarly in the Maxine McKew book, and I am absolutely stunned that scarce public resources in our university systems are being used to fund a straightforward political memoir with a political agenda of trying to assist Kevin Rudd in the Labor leadership struggle. Now you’re the custodian of the public finances for the Opposition. How do you view this outrageous use of public money?   ANDREW ROBB: Well I’m not sure of the detail. I did hear what you said earlier on about what was in the book. I did hear about this a few days ago and happened to run into Glyn Davis at a function a few nights ago and said, ‘what’s the story?’, and his version to me was that Maxine was given a part time fellowship and I just assumed from what she had written in the book that it gave her the time to go and do other things such as finish the book.   Now, whether that’s true or not, of course I would expect the universities, any university for that matter, to have the common sense not to get involved in political exercises. And I’m just not sure what really is behind all of this and I’d like to know the facts before I shoot my mouth off.   MICHAEL KROGER: Well presumably Andrew we will see a statement tomorrow from Glyn Davis and the University of Melbourne disputing Maxine McKew’s comments and making very clear that none of the funding from the Melbourne University went towards giving her an amount of money to allow her to write this book. That’s what she says in the book but surely public university funds can’t be used in that manner. That would be a very disappointing use of university monies, but look we’ll know the truth tomorrow no doubt Glyn Davis will come out with a full statement.   ANDREW ROBB: I don’t disagree with you I am just saying I am not going to shoot my mouth off before I know the details.   MARK LATHAM: Well I was trying to help you with your list of cost savings, that you could immediately axe the fellowship program at Melbourne University and redirect it in to some better purpose or even build up your surplus.   ANDREW ROBB: Well I have got a couple of former colleagues who I’ve got enormous respect for who I think are making good use of part-time fellowships.   MARK LATHAM: There’s not going to be much hope for you as Finance Minister if you’re influenced by former colleagues. You’ve got to be tougher than that.   ANDREW ROBB: Thanks Mark.   MARK LATHAM: You’ve got to reduce the ‘age of entitlement’ as Joe Hockey called it. Do you believe we’ve got an age of entitlement and if so, what are you going to do about it?   ANDREW ROBB: I do think that increasingly people feel that they deserve a lot from the public purse, much of which they could do without frankly. It is our intent, and we will live within our means, that’s a good start so we are not going to be presiding over a quarter of a trillion dollar debt. Our aim is to progressively get in to surplus and get that debt down.   And that means cutting expenses. It means not spending what you haven’t got frankly Mark. At the moment we’ve got a Government that has been on a spending binge for several years now, and they just spend and spend, and borrow and borrow, and today with them walking away from the surplus they’ve lost the last shred of any sort of economic credibility.   They clearly have got no plan for this country and they’re making it up daily. We have done a lot of work already. We will get on top of this mess that they’ve made if we get the privilege of Government.   MARK LATHAM: Well 12 months from now you could be, most likely you will be, the Finance Minister. What are the entitlements that people could do without?   ANDREW ROBB: I can’t sit here and nominate all sorts of programs Mark. The fact of the matter is there are lots of things that this Government has spent money on which should never have qualified for spending.   They just haven’t got it. You would like to do all sorts of things for people but if you have got to borrow to pay for those programs then you can’t do them. We’re seeing it again now with this government promising to do the National Disability Insurance Scheme, they’re promising to do $6 billion of Gonski education spending; they’re inferring now all sorts of programs to do with this Asian wish list they have put out over the weekend.   None of this money is there. They haven’t got this money. And they don’t pretend where they will find it. There is $120 billion already of a black hole and this government has just not lived within its means. We will do so. We have done the work.   If there is an election called tomorrow we would go with a fully funded program and we would start from day one to rein in the reckless spending that we have been witness to.   MICHAEL KROGER: Andrew you have been in the Parliament the last couple of days, obviously strongly participating in the questioning by the Opposition of the Government both in the Senate and the Reps, where the Opposition has asked the Government to use the word ‘guarantee’ in relation to delivery of a surplus, the much promised delivery of a surplus, for the financial year 2012/13.   And the Government are refusing to use that word ‘guarantee’ so let’s assume that they know they have got no hope of delivering a surplus. I think most people know that. The question we discussed on this program one month ago was: what does that mean in terms of the election timing?   Does it mean they are likely to run to an election before the Budget in the first week of May next year, knowing that if they go to the election with a Budget deficit they are going to be in one hell of a trouble. Or, do you think they come to the Budget in May next year and say look, we couldn’t deliver a Budget surplus, sorry it was a stuff up. We were completely wrong, we misled you, that they have still got a chance of being elected.   So, where do you see election terms of election timing in terms of a forthcoming rather large Budget deficit which everyone in the financial markets thinks is going to be well more than $20 billion?   ANDREW ROBB: You’re absolutely right, no one does believe, in fact, there is a poll out today showing 75% of Australians don’t believe they will get a surplus, and I hear on the grapevine that Wayne Swan is one of them. It is clear from the body language that they don’t believe they are going to get there. They never were going to get there.   I think that the whole strategy of walking away from this surplus promise, and bear in mind this has been a non-negotiable promise from this mob for the last two years, which they are now walking away from, I think the inspiration is to give them the wriggle room to try and get through a Budget next year where they will blame the rest of the world on the fact that they are $20 billion again out of pocket.   It gives them a chance to go as late as they can. That’s what they want. They want to hold on to the reins of power as late as they can, and hope in the meantime that they can try and tear us down by personal abuse.   MARK LATHAM: Andrew can you guarantee a Budget surplus for every year of the first term of an Abbott government?   ANDREW ROBB: I can say absolutely that if the forecasts that the Treasury have provided in MYEFO and the Budget before that are true and accurate, we will deliver in our first term each year.   We have done the work to show that we can do that. We are confident about doing it if the Treasury forecasts are in fact accurate.   MARK LATHAM: And when are you planning to announce your cost saving measures? You mention the election campaign. Surely you won’t leave it that late. The Australian people would have the right to know what plans you have got in mind well in advance of the formal campaign.   ANDREW ROBB: The thing is Mark, we have done the work, but we can’t close the books now. In all prospect, we are nearly 12 months still away from an election. Think of the mess that they could make between now and then.   MARK LATHAM: I am asking about your plans. You have been around a long while and you would know full well when you are going to roll out your cost saving measures and announce them.   ANDREW ROBB: Are you going to keep interrupting or are you going to give me a chance to answer?   MARK LATHAM: I do want you to answer, please answer.   ANDREW ROBB: I’m just demonstrating why it is nonsense to tell us to close our books now and release all the detail of what we should do and can do because the fact of the matter is daily we are seeing the mess they are making.   Their tax that they introduced, the mining tax, it didn’t produce one cent. This is the first tax in history which has never delivered any money. Now they assumed in a Budget which we took in good faith that it would deliver $2 billion, and now we see it is not going to deliver a cent.   They have had in the last month, 2,100 people have arrived via the people smugglers. At that rate, we will have an extra 25,000 over the next 12 months. That is billions of dollars blow out in the books. We cannot close the books now and reveal what we can do until we see the numbers from Treasury independently assessed four weeks out from the election we cannot close the books and reveal all of that financial detail.   MICHAEL KROGER: Andrew, no doubt we are going to have an opportunity early in 2013 to take the question of the Budget deficit up with you again, but for tonight I want to thank you very much indeed for joining up from the Canberra studio.   ANDREW ROBB: My pleasure, thanks Michael, thanks Mark. Andrew Robb Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:41:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1447 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1446/Speech--Motion-to-Suspend-Standing-and-Sessional-Orders.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1446 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1446&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1446/Speech--Motion-to-Suspend-Standing-and-Sessional-Orders.aspx MOTION TO SUSPEND STANDING AND SESSIONAL ORDERS Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (15:03): I second the motion. Standing orders should be suspended, because the final fig leaf hiding Labor's incompetence and economic ineptitude is withering before our eyes. The surplus is dead. Despite Labor's best efforts at budget fiddles and budget fraudulence, this government is finally being bludgeoned by the fiscal consequence of years of reckless spending. The government is squirming away from its non-negotiable promise to deliver a surplus. The pretence of having your cake and eating it as well has been exposed—and doesn't everybody know it. Standing orders need to be suspended, because we see today that only one in four Australians believe that Labor will be able to deliver its promise to get back into the black before the election. One in four, 25 per cent of Australians only, believe that this government can deliver a surplus—will get back into the black—after years of economic growth, after the biggest boom in our history, after terms of trade that were at 150-year highs, after an increase in commodity prices of only 350 per cent! Yet they still cannot deliver a surplus, and 75 per cent of Australians can see straight through the rhetoric of this government, see the emptiness of Labor's economic promises. That is why standing orders must be suspended. There is a crisis of confidence right across the community; there has been now for 18 months to two years: 13 per cent of all disposable income across 7½ million households is being saved, because people have no confidence to spend money. No wonder retail is on its knees. That is $120 billion taken out of the economy in one year in savings. Why? The only reason is that people have no confidence that this government will do what it says it will do. Seventy-five per cent today confirmed that they do not believe that this government will deliver a surplus. They do not believe any of the nonsense this government has been peddling in budget after budget—the shonky forecasts, the endless spending, the reckless spending. It goes on and on and on. The economic fraudulence of this government was so starkly exposed when, as my colleague said, within a day of the release of the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, it was revealed that the first quarter's payment of the resources super tax was a bit fat zero. The Treasurer became the first Treasurer in history to initiate a tax that does not actually raise any money! In fact, we are told that it could in the years ahead lead to the payment of money back to companies. This is a oncer; this is a first. The important thing is that walking away from a surplus does have major consequences. It will result in more unfunded spending. It will open the floodgates to spending. The $120 billion black hole is only the start of it—this will open the floodgates for more spending. We have heard it today, with the Asia vision: billions of dollars being promised at this dispatch box, by implication. Where is that coming from? It is on top of the $120 billion black hole. We will see more borrowing, more debt, more issuing of government bonds, more pressure on the Australian dollar. Penny Wong, the finance minister, said in her first speech that 'this government has made it clear that the return to surplus is not negotiable'. Well, this government is crab-walking away from that promise, made over 150 times in the last two years. The backflip over this non-negotiable commitment to deliver a surplus is leaving Australia more vulnerable, more exposed—we need a change of government if we are to remove the crisis of confidence that is so endemic in our community. (Time expired) Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The question is that the motion be agreed to. If I do not get to put the question, you won't get to have a division. I call the Leader of the House. Andrew Robb Tue, 30 Oct 2012 00:10:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1446 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1445/MPI--THE-FAILURE-OF-THE-GOVERNMENT-TO-DELIVER-AN-ECONOMIC-AND-FISCAL-PLAN-TO-RETURN-THE-BUDGET-TO-SURPLUS.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1445 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1445&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1445/MPI--THE-FAILURE-OF-THE-GOVERNMENT-TO-DELIVER-AN-ECONOMIC-AND-FISCAL-PLAN-TO-RETURN-THE-BUDGET-TO-SURPLUS.aspx THE FAILURE OF THE GOVERNMENT TO DELIVER AN ECONOMIC AND FISCAL PLAN TO RETURN THE BUDGET TO SURPLUS   Mr Robb (Goldstein) (16:00):  Wouldn't you know it? This happens every time. I seem to follow the Assistant Treasurer, the member for Lindsay, every time we have a matter of public importance, which gives him an opportunity to defend the position of the government. He did not spend one second defending any position of the government. It was just another exercise in cheap shots, anecdotes and all the rest. As usual, he scurries off. It is a fruitless exercise but it does reinforce the point about this whole debate—that is, that the failure to outline a plan to return to surplus in MYEFO is yet again just another symbol, another example of the failure now for many years to present any sort of vision, any sort of road map as to where they are taking the country. That is why there is a crisis of confidence in Australia. That is why people are saving like there is no tomorrow. That is why businesses are sitting on, in many cases, very healthy balance sheets. There is no confidence about investing in this country and it largely stems from the absence of leadership.   There is failure, from the Prime Minister down, to articulate what this government will do not just to deal with the problems but to set us up for the opportunities. How can adding $257 billion of debt to Australia—and growing—be consistent with the rhetoric we heard over the weekend about Asia? We have the minister responsible for Asia now in the House. How can Australia properly take advantage of what should be a miraculous, spectacular three decades—in my view—if we are burdened with the highest debt this country has ever had? If you add federal and state debt together, we have nearly half a trillion dollars of debt and it is growing. There is nothing in the MYEFO or in the budget before it which shows that this government has any idea, has any prospect, has any concept of how it is going to take Australia to a better place. On 30 August this year the Australian Financial Review wrote a telling editorial in which it observed:   … going forward, the budget is facing a black hole of colossal proportions and Labor has no strategy to deal with it.   That is what the community thinks. Here is a government now with a black hole of colossal proportions. This is after, by the way, years of growth. Farmers will tell you that if you have a bunch of good seasons in a row then you put hay away for when you need it, when the bad season comes.   This government keeps telling us about trend growth and we do know that we have had the biggest mining boom and 150 years. Compared with the rest of the world, we are so blessed yet we have a debt going through the ceiling; we have a government with a colossal black hole. We saw not one thing in the budget which suggested how this government would pay for $120 billion of commitments that it floated are going to be made in the years ahead.   You watch at the next election the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The government will claim credit for having introduced it. We are so far away from it that it does not matter. It is a con on the Australian public but, most importantly, on the most disadvantaged people in our community. They are being misled to believe that it is just around the corner, that it is funded and that it is deliverable. This government has no moral fibre. To go out there and mislead people in this way is a disgrace, an absolute disgrace. It is because, as the Financial Review said, Labor has no strategy to deal with it, none whatsoever.   We saw nothing from the member for Lindsay. The Assistant Treasurer, would you believe, had 15 minutes to quietly and confidently articulate a case for the plan they have got to deliver a surplus. What did we hear? Nothing but cheap shots straight out of the Labor-union book of how to play politics. It is a game to them. It is game of politics, it is not about using politics to get in good policy. It is about playing with people's minds and with policy to deliver politics and power. That is the objective.   This absence of a plan or strategy that the Financial Review spoke about and the growing colossal black hole that the Financial Review also spoke about on August 23 are not new developments. The failure of this government to outline a plan to return Australia to surplus has been with us for some time as have the growing consequences.  I am not normally in the habit of quoting myself but I thought it would be instructive to remind people of what we on this side of the House and so many others over the last two or three years have been saying. It is instructive to go back and see what the nature of this debate was two years ago. I quote from a speech I gave on 16 February 2011. Right back then they were making cast-iron promises about a surplus in 2012-13 and it helped them get through the 2010 election.   They forecast nirvana. They forecast these things and then, when they do not happen, say, 'We've had to deal with some setbacks.' A 150-year high in terms of trade—what a setback that was! That was really bad luck! A 350 per cent increase in commodity prices—oh, shock, horror! How bad is that, to have to deal with those sorts of problems! I feel so sorry!   But to go back to what was said nearly two years ago:   Any "illusory" surplus in 2012-13 ignores the spending commitments being made during the boom times that still need to be met when the boom tapers off and revenues fall.   We were talking about terms of trade coming off—not collapsing but coming off—two years ago. But what did the government do? It ignored this advice. I went on to say:   On top of that, several leading economists claimed last week that a potential $7.4bn black hole existed in the mining tax forecasts due to the "highly risky" revenue stream.   Here we are: leading officials, leading business people and leading economists were warning two years ago that this mining tax was not going to deliver a cent. But the government blithely went on. They have been beating their breasts. They have been lying and obfuscating and misleading the population again and again and again.   Dr Emerson:  Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Consistent with the standing orders, I seek a withdrawal of the claim that this government has been lying. We know that the man who is at the dispatch box himself has a $70-billion black hole. He might tell the truth about that.   The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott):  The member for Goldstein will withdraw the word.   Mr Robb:  I withdraw. The minister opposite talks about black holes. Again, I refer the minister to 30 August—a $120-billion colossal black hole. We are not saying this; this is an analysis by the most respectable financial paper in the country. In that same speech I went on:   As a consequence of the blowout in the structural deficit, the cloud over the amount and volatility of the mining tax revenue and the potential collapse of revenue if the terms of trade drop … Swan and Penny Wong must guarantee full disclosure of the estimated structural deficit in this year's budget papers.   Well, of course, all of that is what we have seen in the last two years. The government has not responded to any of it. We have a government that has no direction and must be gone. Andrew Robb Tue, 30 Oct 2012 00:04:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1445 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1443/Early-bird-cannot-bury-a-budget-blowout.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1443 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1443&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1443/Early-bird-cannot-bury-a-budget-blowout.aspx  Early bird cannot bury a budget blowout   Australian Financial Review Monday 22 October, 2012 www.afr.com/p/opinion/early_bird_cannot_bury_budget_blowout_2HzczgNXJDlp7uxF5svZXJ   Rather than a liberal dose of budget honesty in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO), we should brace for another cynical political display.   Today’s release of the budget review has a real whiff about it, considering it has only happened twice before in October this century and both before November polls.   The only plausible explanation for going so early, given there is little prospect of a 2012 election, is to beat a raft of additional bad economic data in late October that would reveal the extent of required revenue write-downs against previous inflated estimates.   By firing the MYEFO gun now, the government could conveniently avoid having to report the full size of the hole in mining tax revenue. It has $3 billion booked for this year and $13.4 billion over the forward estimates, money it has spent already. The first payments, or lack thereof, may not have been through by the time MYEFO was printed.   But you need more than cute timing to try to manufacture a wafer-thin surplus of $1.5 billion, or just 0.1 per cent of gross domestic product. It would take a rare talent, given the cumulative $173 billion in the four record deficits Labor has actually delivered – recession-size deficits, despite a growing economy and mining boom.   MYEFO will no doubt contain more money shuffles and dodgy accounting tricks on top of the $8 billion-plus in spending shifts already exposed to bolster the 2012-13 bottom line artificially: things such as inexplicably prepaying $1.1 billion in grants for local governments in 2011-12 and bringing forward the School Kids bonus payment from July to June.   There are also the cash raids on entities such as Medibank Private ($850 million over three years) and even reports of strong-arm tactics against the Reserve Bank of Australia to force a $500 million “dividend” from last year’s profits. Anything that isn’t nailed down is fair game.   We can expect unprincipled changes in long-standing accounting treatments to remove expenditure. Dropping the costs associated with the Future Fund is near certain, which alone would lift the bottom line by $2 billion over four years. There is also $5.8 billion worth of debt for the loss-making national broadband network that is being kept “off budget”.   New alcohol and tobacco taxes are also tipped, as well as hits on superannuation, while 280 grants programs, including for research, have been frozen, wreaking havoc on budgeting in universities and community organisations.   The Gillard government is a past master at inflating forecasts only to later declare they’ve been hit by “unexpected write-downs”, and factoring some write-downs in say, terms of trade and the mining tax or corporate taxes, knowing full well that the actual write-downs will be much greater.   Look at the $43.7 billion deficit confirmed in the final budget outcome for 2011-12, almost double the $22.6 billion predicted in the actual budget 16 months prior.   While we were told before the 2010 election that net debt would peak at $94.4 billion, today it is $147 billion, a mere $52 billion blowout. We need to bear this in mind when the “world’s greatest Treasurer” spruiks his mystical surplus.   Labor’s overreliance on debt is such that leading global bond investor PIMCO found that Commonwealth government bonds were Australia’s second biggest export in 2011-12, surpassing coal. PIMCO contends this “capital tidal wave” has contributed to the high dollar without providing the same economic benefits as other big exports – to the detriment of manufacturers, tourism operators and education providers.   In gross terms for the first time in Australia’s history, the federal government owes more than $259 billion. You never hear the Treasurer talk about that, given he inherited $70 billion in net assets.   The Gillard government is spending $100 billion more a year, about 35 per cent more compared with the last year of the Howard government. This is laughable when you hear Swan and Finance Minister Penny Wong boast about their supposed “savings” record when their spending has outstripped revenue by $173 billion since 2007. In Wong’s self-congratulatory post-budget “savings” press release, $10.4 billion worth were revenue measures – new or increased taxes.   In MYEFO there needs to be some honesty about how vulnerable the economy is to heavier falls in the terms of trade than predicted, which would cost the budget billions. The budget factored in a fall of 5.75 per cent, yet most economists are predicting much greater falls off the back of big drops we have seen in key commodity prices since the budget, with iron ore and coal down about 45 per cent from their peak.   There is also the big question of how the government plans to plug its $120 billion black hole in unfunded promises, as exposed by The Australian Financial Review, (“Labor’s $120bn blowout”, August 30) without relying on debt.   A full national disability insurance scheme, for example, would cost about $46 billion by 2020, yet the government has so far committed just $1 billion for trials, despite claiming full credit. Asked in Senate estimates to confirm there was no further commitment beyond this, Secretary of Finance David Tune replied: “I do not know what is in the government’s head”.   The public is fed up with the government’s endless politicking. If the crisis of confidence pervading the community is to ease, honesty must underpin the budget update.   Andrew Robb is opposition finance spokesman. Andrew Robb Sun, 21 Oct 2012 22:41:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1443 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1442/The-Punch--Dont-be-a-MYEFO-Wayne.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1442 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1442&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1442/The-Punch--Dont-be-a-MYEFO-Wayne.aspx  http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/dont-be-a-myefo-Wayne/ Don’t be a MYEFO Wayne   19 Oct 05:35am   Warren Buffett once said that only when the tide goes out do you discover who’s been swimming naked. The tide is certainly going out on the Gillard government, but that doesn’t stop them from trying every trick in the book to delay everything from being revealed.   At a time when budget honesty is desperately needed there is strong speculation Labor is going to rush out its Mid Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO) weeks earlier than normal perhaps even as soon as Monday.   If Labor is to release the budget update next week it will be for the most cynical of reasons. It will allow them to avoid factoring in additional economic data due in late October which is tipped to show declining revenues. Of the past 14 MYEFOs only two have been released in October and that was in advance of November elections. Labor is desperate to keep its ‘cook the books’ $1.5 billion surplus projection for 2012-13 alive for as long as possible, never mind the real track record of the four biggest deficits in history totalling $173 billion.   The first quarterly payments of the government’s shambolic mining tax are also not due until Monday so a release next week would allow the government to continue to book near the full proceeds - $13.4 billion over the forward estimates – without having to reveal the actual revenue figures.   Everybody knows there is no way known the mining tax will raise anywhere near what the government claims it will, yet it already has all of the money spent. In fact it has been reported that only the two biggest miners will pay anything, not because they have a liability, but effectively out of sympathy because of their role in brokering the deal!   In recent months there have been big falls in iron ore and coal prices hitting the terms of trade (ToT). In May a fall in the ToT of 5.75 per cent in 2012-13 was factored into the budget, yet many private economists are predicting much heavier falls, which would cost the budget billions.   The onus is on the government to provide the most up-to-date and believable estimates in regard to the ToT and commodity prices in MYEFO, not more Pollyanna assumptions.   But given the government’s form, MYEFO will no doubt contain more money shuffles and budget fiddles. At budget time the Coalition had already identified at least $8 billion in brazen money shifts designed to artificially inflate the 2012-13 budget bottom line.   They are also raiding every hollow log they can find by carving out ‘special dividends’ from the likes of Medibank Private ($850 million over three years) and there even reports the Reserve Bank has been strong armed into paying a $500 million dividend from last year’s profits to be booked in the budget this year.   The government also plans to change the long-standing accounting treatment of costs associated with Future Fund investments, to help meet the Commonwealth’s future superannuation liabilities, which surprise, surprise would improve this year’s budget bottom line by $417 million.   In addition $5.8 billion in borrowing for the loss making NBN Co is being kept off the budget bottom line, and while Labor claims it is tightening the belt and returning to surplus, debt continues to increase. In the 2011-12 budget Labor said net debt would reach $106.6 billion yet the actual figure is now $147.3 billion – a $40 billion blow-out.   The biggest MYEFO test for Labor will be to outline how it intends to fund a $120 billion black hole of unfunded future budget liabilities without imposing new taxes and further ratcheting up debt. Senate Estimates revealed this week, for instance, that the government is not committed to funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme, beyond the $1 billion allocated for the initial trials, whereas the full program is likely to cost around $10.5 billion per year. This hasn’t stopped the government claiming political mileage from the impression it is fully committed.   Wayne Swan gets hysterical when ever his budget black hole is mentioned, but Macroeconomics budget policy director Stephen Anthony said: “There is a hole, fill it and by the way, stop raising spending promises you can’t keep.”   Not only is the tide going out but storm clouds remain on the horizon and the government has a responsibility in MYEFO to deliver some budget honesty not another cynical political document. Andrew Robb Thu, 18 Oct 2012 22:44:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1442 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1441/MYEFO-TIME-FOR-LABOR-TO-STOP.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1441 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1441&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1441/MYEFO-TIME-FOR-LABOR-TO-STOP.aspx MYEFO: TIME FOR LABOR TO STOP ‘COOKING THE BOOKS’   When budget honesty is required, speculation persists that Labor will rush out its Mid Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO) weeks earlier than normal to avoid factoring in additional economic data about declining revenues.   “This would be the latest cynical move by a government that has used every smoke and mirror trick imaginable to create an illusory $1.5 billion surplus for this year, despite having delivered the four biggest budget deficits on record totalling $173 billion,” Shadow Finance Minister Andrew Robb said.   It should be remembered that in the 2011-12 budget Labor estimated a deficit of $22.6 billion for that year, but the recent final budget outcome revealed a $43.7 billion deficit – a blow-out of more than $20 billion in just 15 months.   “Labor is desperate to keep its surplus pipedream alive for as long as possible and looks set to release its supposed mid-year budget update before a flood of potential new revenue data becomes available in late October.   “A release next week would for instance allow the government to continue to book the full proceeds of its shambolic mining tax - $13.4 billion over the forward estimates – before the truth is revealed that mining companies will pay only a small fraction of that figure,” Mr Robb said.   “The budget factored in a fall in the terms of trade of 5.75 per cent in 2012-13, yet many private economists are estimating a fall of 10-15 per cent, which would cost the budget billions. In MYEFO the onus is on the government to provide the most up-to-date and believable estimates in regard to the terms of trade and commodity prices.   “Given Labor’s recent track record, MYEFO will no doubt contain further money shuffles and other budget fiddles. As of the May budget the Coalition had already identified at least $8 billion in money shifts to artificially inflate the 2012-13 budget bottom line.   “In addition $5.8 billion in borrowing for the loss making NBN Co is being hidden from the budget’s bottom line.   “While Labor claims to be tightening the belt and returning to surplus debt is continuing to increase. In the 2011-12 budget Labor said net debt would reach $106.6 billion yet the actual figure is now $147.3 billion – a $40 billion blow-out,” Mr Robb said.   “The biggest MYEFO test for Labor will be to outline how it intends to fund $120 billion black hole of unfunded promises without imposing new taxes and further amping up debt.    “It was revealed during Senate Estimates, for example, that the government has not committed to funding the NDIS beyond $1 billion for the initial trials, whereas the full program is likely to cost around $10.5 billion per year.   “At a time when the government continues to make big unfunded promises despite the mining boom having peaked against a backdrop of global uncertainty, we need some budget honesty not another cynical political document,” Mr Robb said.   Andrew Robb Thu, 18 Oct 2012 04:10:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1441 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1438/MPI--The-urgent-need-for-the-Government-to-provide-accurate-information-on-Australias-current-budgetary-situation.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1438 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1438&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1438/MPI--The-urgent-need-for-the-Government-to-provide-accurate-information-on-Australias-current-budgetary-situation.aspx Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (15:47): No wonder there is a crisis of confidence in the Australian community—people saving like they never have before; businesses not investing, despite cashed up balance sheets. We have just heard the member for Lindsay—the Assistant Treasurer, would you believe? He had 15 minutes and was unable to answer one question, not one question, posed to him by the shadow Treasurer. No wonder there is a crisis of confidence. No wonder he is leaving the chamber. Off he goes. He has not given one answer in 15 minutes. It is pathetic. For over two years now, we have been warning this government about its reckless spending and the impact that that is having on creating a structural deficit, a situation where the government has now committed this country to well over $100 billion of ongoing new spending, which—when the rivers of resource gold start to dry up to some extent; not collapse, but when they start to come back—we will be unable as a country to afford the commitment, the structural deficit, the reckless spending that this government has embarked on. Warren Buffett once said that it is only when the tide goes out that you discover who is swimming naked. The tide is going out on this government, and what it is revealing is not a pretty sight. You never hear this government refer to debt. When was the last time we heard this government talk about debt? Never. They never talk about it. You never hear this government refer to the significance of the four biggest budget deficits in this nation's history. You never hear this government talk about the impact on the broader economy of needing to fund this record debt. You saw no comment two weeks ago when that record debt went over a quarter of a trillion dollars. For the first time in our history, the Australian federal government now owes over a quarter of a trillion dollars. I will put this into some context by asking one simple question—I put this to the chamber: what was Australia's second-largest export last year? Easy question. Iron ore? No; that was the largest. Coal? Gas? Wool? No. I will give you the answer. Australia's second-largest export last year—according to PIMCO, the world's largest bond investor—was Commonwealth government bonds. Would you believe that? Have we ever heard this? Here we have a debate about the government providing accurate information but no-one in this chamber was able to answer the question. Minister Burke here is totally ignorant of the fact that the second-biggest export last year was Commonwealth government bonds. Would you believe it! Not only is that an interesting fact; it also has implications. Importantly, PIMCO go on to say that funding the record debt—described by them as a 'capital tidal wave'—has contributed to the high level of Australia's currency. Funding this debt has held up the Australian currency at record levels but it has also provided none of the direct economic benefits that other large exports provide when they increase terms of trade and push up the value of the dollar. The government bonds have been in the market pushing up the Australian dollar while this government says that it is doing all it can to help those affected by the high dollar—manufacturers, the tourist industry, those selling education overseas and the millions of businesses that are trade exposed in this country and do not have the benefit of iron ore and coal sales and associated activities. We have been blessed with high iron ore and coal prices. As terms of trade have gone up so has the dollar; that is what normally happens. In fact terms of trade are coming off in Australia at a much greater rate than was anticipated, even in the recent budget. The budget as it stands assumes a fall in the terms of trade of 5.75 per cent. So, when the Treasurer was asked, 'What have you allowed for this reduction or fall-off in price?' he said, 'Of course we have done that; we've assumed terms of trade to come back 5.75 per cent.' However, based on falls in commodity prices since June, economists are almost unanimous in projecting that the terms of trade are likely to fall this year a further 10 per cent over and above what the budget papers assumed just back in May. That gives a shortfall of about $20 billion. Just watch this upcoming MYEFO. It will be brought forward—it will come out sooner rather than later—so that they can make assumptions which they hope to get by with. Watch the trickery. Watch this government fudge these numbers with trickery and subterfuge. You will see it writ large again, as we saw it in the budget. This is a government that is not, in any way, making a contribution to accurate information on Australia's current budgetary situation. Let me tell you more, though, about the problem with relying on the funding of government debt on overseas markets through government bonds. When the banks borrow they hedge the dollar, and that borrowing has a minimum impact on the value of the Australian dollar. Many of the banks are pulling out or they are repaying offshore borrowing faster than they raise new debt. What we are seeing now, however, is that offshore investors in government bonds—many of them are central banks—often do not hedge their foreign exchange exposure, as they are specifically attempting to diversify their foreign exchange reserves. As a consequence, in contrast to the banks, who hedge their A-dollar proceeds, foreign investors buying Australian dollars to invest in government bonds on an unhedged basis put upward pressure on the Australian dollar. So this manic drive to spend, spend, spend is pushing up debt, debt, debt, which is resulting in a quarter of a trillion dollars of government bonds, which are going onto the world market unhedged because the buyers of those bonds do not want to hedge those things—they are trying to spread their risk. As a consequence the Australian dollar is being held up. I suspect that all of us in this chamber wander around our electorates and other parts of the community and now people—businessmen and others—are asking us, 'Why is the Australian dollar staying up when the commodity prices have come off?' After the global financial crisis, before they started to spend, spend, spend, the automatic stabiliser of a lower dollar came in. The dollar dropped from one to the US down to 60c. It was our biggest trade performance on record—ever—in the first quarter of 2009, because of the automatic stabiliser and low interest rates. That is what saved this economy, with a great budget position from which to go into that global financial crisis—not the wanton spending that has taken place in the year or two, or three or four since. That is not what saved jobs; it was this automatic stabiliser. Now their debt is stopping that happening again. As the commodity prices come off, the A-dollar is being held because this government is putting bonds into the market at a rate which is holding up the Australian dollar. It is materially impacting on the inability of manufacturers, our tourist operators and our education exporters to compete on world markets. This is dereliction of duty. This is misrepresentation. This is obfuscation of the facts in this situation. Of course, Minister Burke opposite just smiles. Why wouldn't those opposite smile? That is their answer to all of these things. There is no capacity for fiscal stimulus if things really come off now, because it can only be funded by debt, which means more pressure on the A-dollar. The Treasury monetary policy is being compromised, also, because it is down now to only 0.25 per cent above the so-called crisis level—as it was called by the Treasurer back during the GFC. So fiscal policy has been thrown out of the ring. We cannot use that if things turn down even further, and monetary policy is constrained. This government is incompetent. It has got us into a very vulnerable position. This government needs to give up the reins of office if we are to restore the stability and confidence that this country needs. (Time expired) Andrew Robb Wed, 10 Oct 2012 23:16:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1438 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1437/Clean-Energy-Amendment-Bill-2012.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1437 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1437&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1437/Clean-Energy-Amendment-Bill-2012.aspx Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (17:21): I rise to speak on the clean energy amendment bills, which are designed primarily to remove the price floor of $15 per tonne on carbon and to link Australia's carbon tax to the European emissions trading scheme. In coming to a response to these bills, I read the minister's second reading speech. Essentially, in amongst all the fantasy, the minister outlined the government's so-called underpinning principles of its carbon tax policy: (1) to be environmentally effective, (2) to be economically efficient and (3) to be socially fair. So it is not unreasonable to put those principles and the attempt to abide by those principles to the test, which is what I would like to do—to look at how environmentally effective, how economically efficient and how socially fair this might be. Senator Penny Wong, in her capacity as climate change minister in the previous parliament, said on 6 February 2008 at an AiG luncheon: The introduction of a carbon price ahead of effective international action can lead to perverse incentives for such industries to relocate or source production offshore. There is no point in imposing a carbon price domestically which results in emissions and production transferring internationally for no environmental gain. I was the shadow minister for climate change for 12 months in the lead-up to the collapse of the CPRS. We were lectured and we were hectored in this chamber and all around the country for three years over the notion that you cannot go it alone, that you have to be part of a global scheme. This principle was at the heart of everything that the Rudd government sought to do with the introduction of an emissions trading scheme. They said endlessly: 'We have to be part of a global scheme and a global scheme is coming. That's why you've got to vote for this. We can't be left behind. We've got to be part of it.' We all know now what happened at Copenhagen, and it cost the member for Griffith his job. He preached this so vehemently with all of his colleagues. After Copenhagen there was no global scheme; in fact, the world fractured in the face of the global financial crisis and saw that what was proposed was a monumental waste of money that was not going to deliver environmental outcomes. But we got lectured on this endlessly for three years. And now they dare come into this chamber and say they are acting on the principle of being environmentally effective. Let us have a look at it. The EU, which we are now irrevocably linking ourselves to on carbon pricing, is dictated to by the bureaucrats in Europe. No-one has disagreed with that. No-one has contradicted the fact that now and into the future the design of the carbon tax, the price level—all of these things—will be factors determined by bureaucrats and politicians in Brussels, over which we will have zero impact. Talk about handing over our sovereignty to another nation—in this case, to 30 other nations. It is inconceivable. Nevertheless, the EU accounts for less than five per cent of world emissions. So it is not that we are linking ourselves to carbon markets that are particularly representative. It is not a deep market, it is not a robust market and it is not a reliable market. It is almost a pilot scheme when you compare it with what has been introduced in Australia. The most striking feature of the market in the European community is its persistent instability, so much so that the price has collapsed to around $7 a tonne. There is absolutely zero incentive for investment in lower emissions technology. The price to produce a megawatt hour of coal is $35, for gas it is $55, for wind it is $90 and for solar it is $330. So can you tell me that $7 a tonne is going to have any impact on investment? It will have zero impact. What will a market that goes up to $50 and back to $7 do to potential investors? What are they going to think? The market in Europe is not working to encourage low-emissions technology. The price will ultimately be set by countries without any base in natural resources. The European community is not exactly a resource powerhouse. They might make glass and a few high-technology products, all sorts of things, but they are not a resource powerhouse. Our competitors, the countries that we compete with on resources and energy, are not European countries. They might be trading partners in other respects of some consequence, but they are not competitors. So we are putting a price on our product and looking to compete with countries which have no carbon price. Yet the minister stands in this chamber and tries to make out that we are now part of a world movement. I am afraid nothing happened at Copenhagen—in fact, it fell apart—and nothing has happened ever since, which gives no prospect of anything taking place in a global sense. There is no need for the Europeans to worry about what carbon prices, if any, are charged by Australian resource competitors. They will not worry about that. They are not going to sit there in Brussels and agonise over the terms and conditions they apply and the assistance they provide to industries because of the effect those things will have on us. We will have to compete against countries such as China, Brazil, Uruguay—South American and African countries—and Canada, none of which have a carbon price in place. The Europeans are not going to worry one whit about that. Yet we should. The EU exempts virtually all its export industries from emissions trading schemes. We do not exempt ours. Let us take dairy processing—no exemptions, no assistance. It is one of our strengths. It is one thing that we do better than just about anyone in the world, apart from the New Zealanders. A lot of our prosperity has been built on these sorts of industries. There is not one whit of assistance here for the dairy industry. What about in Europe? Ninety-three per cent free permits. We are linking ourselves to Europe and their industry will have that sort of advantage. I could give you endless examples. We hear from the minister that these sorts of facts are a baseless fear campaign and that the rest of the world is in lockstep on all of this. In fact, he said in the most disingenuous component of his whole speech that, from 2013, 850 million people will live in a place where polluters pay for their pollution. That is rubbish. You cannot say that the European emissions-trading scheme bears any resemblance in terms of size or impact. The amount that will have been paid by Australians through this carbon tax, since July, by October and November this year will be equivalent to all the tax raised through all of Europe, with a population of 200 million people, over the last five years. Is that comparing apples with apples? This is madness. The UK have predicted that over the next five years, through until 2015-16, the European emissions-trading scheme will cost the UK population £5½ billion—that is, A$8.6 billion. In that same period, through until 2015-16, the Treasury has estimated that Australians will pay $25 billion. Our friends in the United Kingdom will pay the equivalent of $8.6 billion and our taxpayers will pay $25 billion. The trouble is that there are 66 million people in the UK and only 22 million people here in Australia. So when you compare apples with apples on a per capita basis, or per 22 million people, the UK will pay $2.8 billion compared to Australia, which will pay $25 billion. In other words, the European scheme will have an impact nine times less on the community than the emissions-trading scheme/carbon tax brought in by the Australian government. Yet the government seek to pretend that we are comparing apples with apples. I fear that we are in fact linking up to a scheme which is costing us nine times more than what it is costing our counterparts in the United Kingdom. Yet we are told that we are all part of a global collegiate—that everyone is in it. That is a nonsense. It was a very disingenuous contribution to this debate, to try to give Australians the impression that we are following the world. We are ahead of the world, we are acting alone and we have a price which far exceeds the price of any other country. We are the only country that has a global price—a price across our nation—which is much greater than anywhere else in the world. What is economically efficient about a carbon scheme whose entire purpose, as the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency repeatedly stressed, was to provide a predictable long-term signal which investors in renewables and other emissions technologies could rely on? That was the whole purpose. That is what he said. Of the carbon scheme that the government introduced, he said: Moreover, the floor price was essential to achieving that goal, as it ensures "stability and predictability" and avoids "the risk of sharp downward movements in the carbon price, which could undermine long-term investment in clean technologies". Where is the predictability now, just two months after the introduction of the carbon tax? This is the eighth major change in two months of their scheme. The government are all over the place, just making it up on the run. The minister for climate change, just two months ago, said that this was irrevocable, immutable and that you had to have a carbon floor if you wanted predictability. Now we are linked to Europe and now we have decisions made by 30 countries—politicians and bureaucrats in Brussels—where we will have no influence. Our sovereignty has been totally removed on this matter and yet Europe does not compete in the markets that we compete in. Yet our prices will be set by them. This is just incompetence on a large scale. Let us call this what it is. The carbon tax is nothing more and nothing less than a grubby political decision to keep this Prime Minister and this government in office. That is all it is. That was the inspiration for the decision. It was the reason that this Prime Minister said one thing one week and three weeks later said the absolute opposite. She deceived the Australian people, only because of a grubby political deal to stay in office. It is environmentally ineffective. In fact, it is already pushing business offshore, it is closing down businesses in Australia, investments are not being made and it is not encouraging investment in low-emissions technology. It is environmentally ineffective, it is grossly economically inefficient and we are paying six times the tax over and above what is needed to fund that sort of emissions abatement. And it is socially unfair because it is costing jobs, it is increasing taxes and it is increasing electricity prices, yet it is doing nothing for the environment. (Time expired) Andrew Robb Wed, 10 Oct 2012 23:13:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1437 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1435/LABORS-GROSS-DEBT-TOPS-250-BILLION.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1435 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1435&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1435/LABORS-GROSS-DEBT-TOPS-250-BILLION.aspx THE HON ANDREW ROBB AO MP Shadow Minister for Finance, Deregulation and Debt Reduction Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee Federal Member for Goldstein   MEDIA RELEASE     Friday, 28 September 2012   LABOR’S GROSS DEBT TOPS $250 BILLION   The Gillard government has today surpassed $250 billion of gross debt as confirmed by the Australian Office of Financial Management.   “For the first time in Australia’s history Commonwealth gross debt has exceeded quarter-of-a-trillion dollars,” said Andrew Robb, Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction.   Mr Robb said it was no wonder the government is on a ‘new taxes hunt’ of epic proportions.   “They are so far out of touch they claim the carbon tax isn’t hurting anyone. If they think they can get away with that we know what that means. More tax slugs are on the way, with hits on superannuation and the like.   “The record debt figure confirms the Gillard government’s addiction to borrowing and refusal to live within its means.   “Labor’s growth in debt is extraordinary given that we have been blessed with a mining boom which has delivered the best terms of trade in more than 150 years.   “This government has wasted the mining boom,” Mr Robb said.   The annual interest payments alone on Labor’s gross borrowings are a staggering $12 billion.   “Labor’s debt and continued reckless spending leaves our economy extremely vulnerable to the storm clouds which are gathering over commodity prices.   “Labor’s debt burden is set to continue to rise given its $120 billion black hole of unfunded promises against future budgets,” Mr Robb said.   AOFM web site: http://www.aofm.gov.au/ Andrew Robb Fri, 28 Sep 2012 05:21:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1435 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1434/Joint-Media-Release-with-Joe-Hockey--Labor-busted-fudging-the-numbers.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1434 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1434&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1434/Joint-Media-Release-with-Joe-Hockey--Labor-busted-fudging-the-numbers.aspx LABOR BUSTED FUDGING THE NUMBERS   The Final Budget Outcome released today shows Labor has been busted fudging the numbers.   The Australian National Audit Office has belled the cat on Labor’s cook the books game played in the 2011-12 MYEFO and the 2012-13 Budget.   The Government has been forced to move a $500 million special dividend from the Reserve Bank of Australia to 2011-12 from 2012-13.   Labor was also ordered to change the timing of the Australian Reinsurance Pool Corporation dividend to be counted in 2011-12 as opposed to being apportioned over the forward estimates.   Today’s release shows the Government’s fiscal position continues to deteriorate – confirming this Government is the most addicted to deficit and debt in our history.   The Budget position has been further undermined by Labor’s $120 billion Budget black hole of unfunded promises.   The underlying cash deficit for 2011-12 was $43.7 billion – a number Wayne Swan was too embarrassed to mention in his press conference.  This is Australia’s 3rd biggest Budget deficit on record.   Over just four years this Government has run cumulative deficits exceeding $173 billion.   This Government in five short years has converted $70 billion of money in the bank to $147 billion in net debt.   Net debt has blown out by another $5 billion in just seven weeks, which is an extra $90 million a day on the nation’s credit card.   Wayne Swan described this as a “small increase” – but $5 billion is the equivalent of five world class hospitals or half the annual cost of the National Disability Insurance Scheme.   Furthermore, this deterioration is even before the Government takes into account its $120 billion great big Budget black hole – arrived at through Labor’s reckless and unfunded promises in defence, disability services, education and border protection.   Underlying Cash Balance forecasts for the 2011-12 Financial Year have blown out. In the 2011-12 Budget Papers Labor estimated a deficit of $22.6 billion for 2011-12. The Final Budget Outcome saw this deficit for 2011-12 blowout to $43.7 billion. This is a total deficit blowout of over $21 billion in just 15 months.     Underlying Cash Balance Year Budget Year Estimate ($m) Final Budget Outcome ($m) 2008-09 21,703 (27,079) 2009-10 (57,593) (54,750) 2010-11 (40,756) (47,746) 2011-12 (22,618) (43,740) 2012-13 1,536 ?   In the 2011-12 Budget Papers, Labor estimated a net debt of $106.6 billion in 2011-12. The Final Budget Outcome saw this debt blowout to $147.3 billion – a blowout of over $40 billion. This blowout increased Australia’s yearly interest payment in 2011-12 by $1.1 billion to $6.6 billion.     Net Debt Year Budget Year Estimate ($m) Final Budget Outcome ($m) 2008-09 (44,987) (16,148) 2009-10 53,700 42,283 2010-11 78,520 84,551 2011-12 106,646 147,334 2012-13 143,345 ?                           Net Interest Year Budget Year Estimate ($m) Final Budget Outcome ($m) 2008-09 (2,166) (1,196) 2009-10 1,464 2,386 2010-11 4,633 4,608 2011-12 5,536 6,609 2012-13 7,001 ?                             Spending as a percentage of GDP in 2011-12 was higher than at any point under the Howard Government, coming in at 25.3%. Labor is still spending $100 billion a year more than the last year of the Howard Government.     Payments Year Budget Year Estimate ($m) Final Budget Outcome ($m) 2008-09 287,764 316,046 2009-10 336,644 336,900 2010-11 352,253 346,102 2011-12 362,078 371,032 2012-13 364,209 ?                           Today’s results cast significant doubt on the 2012-13 promise of a surplus that the Prime Minister claims has already been delivered.   This year the Government expects to collect an extra $39 billion in revenue – taking them from a $43.7 billion deficit in 2011-12 to a $1.5 billion surplus in 2012-13. This is even before a further deterioration of Government revenue is factored in, as foreshadowed by Wayne Swan’s own Treasury Secretary Dr Martin Parkinson and the former Treasury Secretary Dr Ken Henry. This Government is fiscally incompetent – not only do they have a $120 billion great big Budget black hole, but today is further confirmation that you cannot even trust the Government’s numbers contained in the Budget papers.   This is a Government without a plan, fudging the numbers as they go along.  They cannot be trusted with managing the nation’s finances.   [ENDS] Andrew Robb Mon, 24 Sep 2012 05:16:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1434 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1432/Commonwealth-Government-Securities-Legislation-Amendment-Retail-Trading-Bill-2012.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1432 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1432&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1432/Commonwealth-Government-Securities-Legislation-Amendment-Retail-Trading-Bill-2012.aspx   Commonwealth Government Securities Legislation Amendment (Retail Trading) Bill 2012 - Second Reading Speech    Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (18:07): We have just heard a contribution from the government, from the member for Robertson, who made some fairly disparaging remarks about my colleague as she opened her remarks. I do not think the member for Robertson, having listened to her now for a few minutes, is really one to judge what is riveting or not, on that performance. But I do say that we support this initiative. It is a good initiative. It is a good thing that small investors will be able to access government bonds through a retail facility. Again picking up the member for Robertson's rhetoric, I would not get too carried away. It is a good thing—I am not putting it down—but I do not know that it is one of the greatest financial reforms in the nation's history. It is not going to add great depth and liquidity to the Australian bond market. It is a good initiative. It is an important one, but let's not get carried away. There are further important steps that I think need to be considered in this regard. The fact of the matter is that, as the member for Robertson has said, there is a cultural issue which seems to militate against investments in debt rather than in equity products. What we have found is that compared with other countries, despite having substantial superannuation funds, the proportion of those funds held in products which give an annuity or a fixed return is much, much lower than what is typically the case in retirement funds elsewhere in the world. Currently, out of the $1.3 trillion, about 16 per cent is in investments which give a fixed return. I think the US is next at about 30 or 35 per cent, but typically for the developed world we are talking about 45 to 50 per cent as the proportion of retirement fund assets invested in products which give a fixed return. With many Australians having significant superannuation holdings, going through the global financial crisis and finding that the money put aside for their retirement was substantially diminished because of the preoccupation of so many of our super funds with equity products rather than a combination of equity and debt products, people have suffered accordingly. So there is a greater interest in, and there should be a greater interest in, doing whatever we can to encourage a greater portfolio spread amongst investments, including among self-managed funds. The large super funds have been able to access government bonds and securities through the wholesale market. This initiative does not increase liquidity for banks or large insurance companies in their investment portfolios across fixed products. But self-managed funds, which are becoming increasingly attractive—I think they are now the biggest fund as a category within the range of superannuation fund organisations—have not been able to access wholesale funds. I think that perhaps the most important part of this initiative is that we will now find an opportunity for people running their self-managed funds to have access to a product which may return less but which has much greater safety, security and certainty about the return. The other thing is that this initiative will not add new money or new liquidity in any great sense. The government debt is out there and is accessible now on the wholesale market to our large institutions. But we know that Australian companies are issuing more than $26 billion to global markets in corporate bonds, yet only about $6 billion was issued in the domestic market. A lot of that is to do with the complexity of issuing and often the difficulty of purchasing government securities compared with other products. This may well lead and should lead to consideration of a broader retail corporate bond market, which may attract companies and some of that $26 billion, which would be extremely important. That would be a reform of great moment because it would potentially attract a significant part of that $26 billion, which is currently being placed overseas on the corporate bond markets, back to Australia. When you have issues such as Basel III and the increasing demands and restrictions, if you like, on our major banks and other financial institutions in terms of the capital base that they are increasingly required to hold, we do need to look very seriously at a range of products which will attract more capital and more diverse forms of capital into our financial market. In this bill in particular, though, we have in front of us not an opportunity for the retail corporate bond market but an opportunity to reinstate a retail market for government bonds not dissimilar to that which existed some 20-odd years or 30 years ago. There are distinctions, though, and they are important ones, in the way in which this has been structured, which again we support. The government has chosen a model of indirect beneficial ownership to facilitate the retail trade, which basically means that retail investors will not acquire legal ownership of the actual debt security; they will acquire a financial product—a depository interest, as it is called—which will be linked to the government security and linked to its performance. The product will provide the purchaser with a beneficial stake in the government securities. It is a neat way of providing a system where selling can be done through intermediaries and managed so that the clearing and settlement facilities for debt can be dealt with efficiently and without too great a cost. The current system, as it has stood, has not been equipped really to deal with settlement of trading directly to retail investors. Hopefully what we have before us will overcome that problem where the market has been inaccessible to retail investors, albeit that it is simply for government bonds in this case. While this is a small step towards adding depth and liquidity—and access, more importantly—to the Australian bond market, there needs to be further clarity about the actual mechanics of this model on a couple of fronts. Firstly, there should be equalisation of tax treatment for income from equity investments and income from government securities. Currently, investors are able to receive a tax concession in the form of an imputation credit on dividend income received from equity investments, while interest income received from government securities is taxed at marginal tax rates when held by an individual. A tax incentive for income from equity investments creates a distortion in investment choice which will need to be addressed by the government with regard to the legislation we have before us. Secondly, there needs to be an education process in order to inform retail investors. Again I state the importance of self-managed superannuation funds, where there is a large body of investors who could and should be considering these sorts of investments in many cases, to give greater certainty and to have a body of investments which are secure because they are government bonds. There needs to be an education process in order to foster the development of this market. It should be accompanied by measures which foster the promotion of a market in conjunction with the industry. Finally, the arrangements for prospectus requirements will need to be reviewed. Currently, the government has exempted issuers of government security depository interest from having to provide investors with product disclosure statements, giving the AOFM sole responsibility for preparing disclosure documents for retail investors. The other issue is an issue which was dealt with some years ago, when the previous government, the Howard government, found itself in a situation where it had no government debt. That was related to strong financial management. It is not a problem that confronts this government, which has record debt and rising—and all the states where there have been Labor governments are lumbering under masses of state government debt. We have gone from debt which, in net terms, was nearly zero to debt now approaching, in gross terms, half a trillion dollars. The issue that Peter Costello confronted, as to whether we should have the issue of government bonds at all, will not have to be to addressed again for a long time, I suspect. But it was resolved—I think importantly—that, given the complexity of the market, and all the range of investors these days, a government bond market, both wholesale and retail, is important and we do need to have government bonds available for those purposes, to provide that greater liquidity. As I said, that is not a problem that will confront this government. In fact, it will hand over at some stage—hopefully at the next election—to us. Mr Shorten: Don't count your chickens! Mr ROBB: I said that I hope that at the next election it will hand over to us. As my colleague said in this chamber just a few minutes ago, it seems always to be the case that Labor gets in, spends the money, creates a problem and then we are required to fix up the mess. Then, when we do, we get pilloried, as the Queensland government and the New South Wales government are getting pilloried on a daily basis in this House for trying to get the books in order, for trying to get some semblance of sound financial management back into government. No doubt we will confront the same problem. Finally, I just want to make the observation that we should not stop with a government retail bond market. There is every good reason to look to a corporate retail bond market. It is grossly underdeveloped at the moment. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to really access. It has a concentration of issuers and relatively short maturities. The key to adding genuine depth and liquidity in debt markets is through the serious development of a corporate retail bond market. Once this bill is through and bedded down, all eyes should turn to that exercise. Andrew Robb Tue, 11 Sep 2012 03:05:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1432 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1425/New-Taxes-and-More-Debt-will-Fund-Labors-Desperate-Promises.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1425 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1425&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1425/New-Taxes-and-More-Debt-will-Fund-Labors-Desperate-Promises.aspx   NEW TAXES AND MORE DEBT WILL FUND LABOR’S DESPERATE PROMISES   Another big new tax and more debt are all but guaranteed under a re-elected Gillard government given the massive unfunded commitments Labor continues to roll out.   Today the prime minister is out making new multi-billion-dollar funding commitments to schools while yesterday she promised to provide billions of dollars for the National Disability Insurance Scheme.   “Labor has reached the desperate point where they are promising the world to everybody without any idea how they will pay for their growing list of ongoing funding commitments,” Shadow Finance Minister Andrew Robb said.   In regard to funding massive new commitments Julia Gillard laughably told Sky News Australian Agenda yesterday: “This is a government that has been off-setting spending, new spending with savings as a routine part of our approach … you’ve got to be prudent with every dollar and we are.”   The prime minister needs to be reminded that:   o   Net debt is now set to peak at $145 billion when just two years ago the government said it would peak at $94.4 billion, a $50 billion blow-out.   o   The government is now spending $100 billion more per year – around 35 per cent more – compared to the last Coalition budget.   o   The government has delivered the four biggest budget deficits in history totalling $174 billion.   Mr Robb said the record shows that the Gillard government is simply not capable of finding real savings or reining in spending to pay for new initiatives.   “If this government happens to be re-elected it is patently obvious that the NDIS will be funded with another big new tax and other big commitments on education will be funded from continued borrowing and debt,” Mr Robb said. Andrew Robb Mon, 20 Aug 2012 05:37:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1425 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1424/MORE-LABOR-ACCOUNTING-TRICKS-WITH-SURPLUS-UNDER-THREAT.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1424 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1424&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1424/MORE-LABOR-ACCOUNTING-TRICKS-WITH-SURPLUS-UNDER-THREAT.aspx     MORE LABOR ACCOUNTING TRICKS WITH ‘SURPLUS’ UNDER THREAT   Thursday, 16 August 2012   The Gillard government continues to rely on dodgy money shuffles and accounting tricks to manufacture a budget surplus rather than delivering a real surplus through spending restraint and fiscal discipline.   In the latest instalment of Labor’s ‘cooking the books’ exercise the government is looking to change the budget accounting treatment of Future Fund costs to improve the budget bottom line by $417 million for 2012-13 and by almost $2 billion over the forward estimates.   “Labor wants to book these improvements without the Future Fund’s actual costs having changed by a single dollar,” Shadow Finance Minister Andrew Robb said.   “The annual operating costs associated with Future Fund investments, which are being made to meet the government’s future superannuation liabilities, have been factored into the underlying cash balance since the Fund’s inception.”   The government is becoming increasingly desperate to deliver the appearance of its promised $1.5 billion surplus this year and it is prepared to do anything to get there.   “This latest move comes on top of all the subterfuge we have already seen to artificially improve the 2012-13 budget bottom line including more than $8 billion in tricky money shuffles. The government is also hiding $5.8 billion in projected NBN spending from this year’s bottom line,” Mr Robb said.   “If it wasn’t for all the tricks, the smoke and mirrors, Labor would be heading for another big budget deficit this year on top of the four record deficits it has already delivered totalling $174 billion.   “It is clear the government is now in panic mode on a number of fiscal fronts. For example, there are huge doubts over the levels of revenue that will be raised from the mining tax, money which Labor has already spent.    Labor is now spending around $100 billion more per year, around 35 per cent more compared to the last Howard budget.   “Instead of further loosening budget discipline to suit its cynical political agenda Labor should have spent the past three years tightening its belt, reducing spending and debt and living within its means,” Mr Robb said.   Media Contact:          Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521.   Andrew Robb Thu, 16 Aug 2012 03:41:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1424 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1413/Adjournment--Carbon-Tax-and-the-Economy.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1413 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1413&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1413/Adjournment--Carbon-Tax-and-the-Economy.aspx   Adjournment - Carbon Tax and the Economy Thursday, 21 June 2012   Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (16:50): Retail is already struggling. We have had a year where a crisis of confidence, an anxiety, about the lack of direction and certainty has been building within households all over the country.   Australia's seven million households have been saving, on average, 12 per cent of their discretionary income. This is extraordinary and has gone on for over 12 months. It translates into something close to $90 billion. That is money which would normally have been spent in shops and on other activities.   Instead, it has been paying off mortgages, paying off plastic and being deposited in banks. That has meant that $90 billion has not been spent. No wonder retailers are on their knees in so many places.  They are already struggling because of the economic circumstances that have been created by this Government over the last three or four years.   In the Victorian regional centre of Shepparton, 140 shops have closed. That is 140 former business owners, and families, who no longer have a living. It is a disgrace. It is an example of what I think we have all witnessed in our own electorates—shopping centres which have an inordinate number of empty shops.   Traders in my electorate are suffering the same anxiety and loss of trade and are extremely anxious about the carbon tax. Nick, who runs the cafe opposite my electorate office, told me how his business is already down 30 per cent year on year because of the collapse of confidence among typical consumers in my electorate. People who used to buy two coffees a day are down to one. If you put that across all his customer base he has a serious loss of trade.   Electricity is one of the biggest inputs into what he does—his coffee machines, fridges, ovens, lighting, heating and air-conditioning. Then there will be cost rises, with the new carbon tax, on the things that he buys in—the milk, which goes through various processes before it reaches his store, and the bread he buys from the baker, whose power bills are also going to dramatically rise. You name it.   Here is Nick's dilemma: if he passes on the increased costs to his customers, his business might be down not 30 per cent but 50 per cent. It is his significant venture. He has put a lot of his life's earnings into this business. He works long hours, as nearly everyone does in hospitality, and yet he is being punished and penalised again, despite his business and millions of other businesses being under enormous financial pressure. They are now going to be subject to a carbon tax and told to get used to it:   'This is a transitional change we have to have.' No-one else in the world is doing it. No other country, no other part of the world, has this change forced down its throats. Yet Australia is doing it at an enormous cost—not only the financial cost but also in the impact on morale, on people's incentives, people's will, to chase some blue sky and try to make a better life for themselves and their families. And there is not one cent of compensation for any one of those 2.4 million small businesses.   That is a story that is reflected right across this country. It is a total disregard for those millions of people and families who worked so hard and so long to try to make a go of a small business venture. There is not one cent of compensation.   Every one of them is affected by it and some of them in a most grievous way. Let us look at the disadvantaged for a second. We have seniors who are forced to go to shopping centres, community centres, libraries and the like now because they cannot afford heaters and air-conditioners. Those numbers will only increase with the carbon tax and a massive increase in their cost of living. This is a bad tax which must be got rid of. (Time expired)   Andrew Robb Thu, 21 Jun 2012 00:24:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1413 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1414/Tax-Laws-Amendment-2012-Measures-No-2-Bill-2012-Income-Tax-Managed-Investment-Trust-Withholding-Tax-Amendment-Bill-2012-Pay-As-You-Go-Withholding-Non-compliance-Tax-Bill-2012.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1414 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1414&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1414/Tax-Laws-Amendment-2012-Measures-No-2-Bill-2012-Income-Tax-Managed-Investment-Trust-Withholding-Tax-Amendment-Bill-2012-Pay-As-You-Go-Withholding-Non-compliance-Tax-Bill-2012.aspx Tax Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 2) Bill 2012, Income Tax (Managed Investment Trust Withholding Tax) Amendment Bill 2012, Pay As You Go Withholding Non-compliance Tax Bill 2012 Second Reading Wednesday, 20 June 2012 Mr ROBB» (Goldstein) (10:11): It is always fascinating to follow the member for Blair. He seems to have one theme, no matter what he is talking about. It is always contradictory when you sit and listen. He stands up and, in the most virulent manner, accuses the opposition of endless negativity and then proceeds for the length of his 15-minute contribution—or whatever it may be—with endless negativity. The government seem to be obsessed with abusing this side of politics and the member for Blair is a classic example of that. I think it reflects the fact that, even though they are the government and should have plenty to say because they are responsible for introducing measures and legislation and defending that legislation, they have nothing to say really. The member for Blair read what is contained in the bill and in essence gave no argument of any consequence in support of those measures. The bill has been in the public arena now for some weeks. There have been some very trenchant concerns and frustrations about some of these provisions. There have been statements made not only by the opposition—let us put us aside—but by the people in the businesses and investors who will be affected by the changes that are proposed. At the very least the lead speaker for the government on this bill should provide some critique of the concerns that have been raised by important members of the community, people who are creating thousands of jobs, looking to promote billions of dollars of investment, looking for certainty, looking for the absence of sovereign risk. You would think that the member for Blair would address some of these concerns that have been listed over several weeks very prominently in the newspapers and elsewhere, yet he went on an exercise of simply reading out what is in the legislation in between all these histrionic attacks on the opposition and inflammatory language about the way in which we have expressed our concerns over the legislation. I must say it is a pathetic contribution and it adds nothing to this debate. It does reflect the morale that we see on the other side and the concern by the adults on the other side that this government is one of the most inept, if not the most inept, governments in our lifetime. It is a government which has lost any sense of direction, if it ever had any. It is a government that is confusing people all over this economy and, externally, with investors in foreign markets. It is a government that has, at its root—because of its incompetence, inconsistency, flip-flopping and lack of direction—very materially created a crisis of confidence amongst households in this country. They have been saving disposable income at a rate of 12 per cent over the last year because they are afraid to spend. They are building up reserves and paying off the mortgage because of their fear. They are worried about their jobs. There is a crisis of confidence. They have pulled $90 billion of discretionary income out of the marketplace. No wonder our retail sector is on its knees. It is because of the lack of confidence. It is because they are waking up at 2.30 in the morning worried about whether they are going to have a job. We see endlessly, each week, reports of companies that are going to the wall and putting off thousands of people. Sure, we are blessed with what is going on with the mining boom in the west and in Queensland. Put that aside, and the rest of the country has stopped. The investors, major companies, have got serious money on their balances sheets that they are not investing because there is a crisis of confidence not only amongst households but also amongst businesses. This sort of legislation is another classic example, another symbol, of the deep sense of confusion and lack of confidence and uncertainty that is now riddled through our economy—at a time when we are blessed with the mining boom. It is a boom that has been going for 10 years and has been wasted by this government. Every dollar of the $800 cheques that are going out is still being borrowed. Can you believe it! After 10 years of a boom and the highest terms of trade in our history—monumentally higher than anything we ever had before—we still have $800 going out to households, every dollar being borrowed. And then there is the flip-flopping that is represented in this bill. We will not be supporting this set of bills, as my colleague the shadow Treasurer announced, because it adds to the great uncertainty and concern about consistency, flip-flopping and the litany of sovereign risk issues that now confront investors who may be looking to put their money in Australia—or investors in Australia looking to take a risk and invest in and create jobs. The changes proposed under the Tax Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 2) Bill 2012and the Pay As You Go Withholding Non-compliance Tax Bill 2011 do not appropriately target phoenix activity. The government has failed to argue a strong enough public justification for the retrospective application of proposed changes contained in schedules 2 and 3 of the tax laws amendment bill. This is in relation to consolidation tax cost-setting arrangements and related changes to taxation and financial arrangements. My colleague the shadow Treasurer went through in some detail—and with great clarity—the way in which schedules 2 and 3 are a lazy attempt to plug some spending holes that this government has. It is a lazy attempt to use retrospective legislation to grab some tax from years ago. The retrospective application of these changes heightens our sovereign risk profile. As an opposition we have very strong in-principle opposition to retrospective tax changes and if anything were ever to be done it would need enormous justification. The reasons this government has put forward are very shallow. In fact, if you listened to the member for Blair he gave no justification of any consequence for the retrospection. All he did was criticise and defame the shadow Treasurer and others on this side of the House. Our opposition stems from the fact that retrospective tax changes can change the substance of bargains struck between taxpayers who made every effort to comply with laws prevailing at the time the agreement was entered into. People who acted lawfully are now going to be slugged, potentially some years later, with an unexpected and in some cases highly significant tax grab by this government. We are opposed to retrospective changes because they can expose taxpayers to penalties in circumstances where taxpayers could not possibly have taken steps, at the earlier time, to mitigate the potential for penalties. We oppose retrospective changes because they may change taxpayers' tax profiles. This, in turn, can materially impact on the financial viability of investment decisions and the pricing of those decisions—years after they were taken, years after people acted in good faith and made a case based on the prevailing legislation. They did their ROI assessments and deals with other companies and took risks based on the prevailing legislation. Now they find they will be lumped with an unexpected, highly material and in some cases debilitating tax bill. It will also leave a mark on their reputation. For many if not all who have acted within the law they will feel they have been unjustly labelled as tax cheats. In some cases, businesses will go to the wall because they took decisions at the time based on the prevailing law. We are opposed to retrospective tax changes because they could increase Australia's level of perceived sovereign risk. Added to these changes is the litany of sovereign risk issues from the introduction of a carbon tax, which was promised never to be introduced, and from the introduction of the mining tax, which exists nowhere else in the world, and, again, the incompetent way in which that has been dealt with over the last 18 months or nearly two years. Then there is the way in which they handled the live cattle job. They have actually created a long-term poisoned pill in the middle of our relationship with Indonesia—our closest neighbour, with a population of nearly 300 million, and a big part of our future, and yet our trade with that country is smaller than with New Zealand and its four million people. Can you believe it? And yet this government has gone out of its way to compromise and frustrate and demean that nation by, overnight, with absolutely no forewarning, announcing, via email, that we were going to cut off 40 per cent of their imported protein, indefinitely, because of a television program three nights before in Australia. Can you believe it? This is the sign of a government which is just amateur hour, and people see all of these things. Now we have a whole raft of changes which have retrospective elements to them. The final element of these bills is the Income Tax (Managed Investment Trust Withholding Tax) Amendment Bill 2012. We hear rumours now that it is going to be withdrawn and possibly some grubby deal is to be done with the Greens. Maybe we will see it introduced, who knows? Nothing will surprise us. Nothing will surprise the rest of business. It will only confirm the judgment they are making: 'Let's not invest. There's too much uncertainty. This government's got no idea.' They have already made a change, yesterday, in the CPI matter, for the passenger movement charge—only a lazy $140 million! But they have withdrawn that. Now, today, we hear that they may well have withdrawn this bill, which increases the withholding tax on foreign investment from 7½ per cent to 15 per cent—just another lazy $265 million! It is the only reason they introduced it in the first place. It was a measure that they introduced some four years ago and received great commendation, including from ourselves. It was an inspired move, to reduce the withholding tax to 7½ per cent. And it has had a material effect. There have been literally billions of dollars, especially coming into the housing and construction sector. We were starting to see billions of dollars being invested in infrastructure through this mechanism. Now all of that will be put on hold. We are literally sacrificing billions and billions of dollars of investment, and a decision, which got commendation around the world and certainly within this country, has now been turned on its head for a miserable $264 million. We even have a situation where research subsequently conducted by Allen Consulting Group is saying that, for every billion-dollar drop in investment—and there will be billions, many billions—from the increased tax, it will raise $40 million less in revenue from the tax increase in 2015-16, than the $75 million predicted by the government. So it is not even going to raise the money they expected. So they have taken this step which has again materially affected our sovereign risk for no good reason. So we have a $400 million hole in the budget. And today we see the Reserve Bank has indicated that the forecast sharp swing to budget surplus next financial year mostly reflects shuffling of spending that will limit the scope for further interest rate rises. The RBA has just confirmed that the budget surplus is a hoax—it is a con. It is a fiction. What we have been saying all along—and what businesses suspects, and what everyone suspects, everyone knows—is that the one-and-a-half-billion-dollar surplus is a con. It is never going to happen. Again, it is a sovereign risk issue now. All of these things are adding up—adding up to a point where this is very dangerous for the country. We are opposed to these bills. This government is out of control. It is all over the place. It must be stopped. The only way this will happen is with an election. (Time expired) Andrew Robb Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:30:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1414 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1408/The-Coalitions-positive-vision-for-Australia.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1408 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1408&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1408/The-Coalitions-positive-vision-for-Australia.aspx   Andrew Robb Fri, 15 Jun 2012 05:44:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1408 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1380/Does-Australia-Need-More-Dams--ABC-Rural-Interview.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1380 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1380&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1380/Does-Australia-Need-More-Dams--ABC-Rural-Interview.aspx   Recordings   Bush Telegraph 19 3 2012 - Does Australia Need More Dams?   Install latest flash player if this video gallery doesn't work. var fObj = new FlashObject('/DesktopModules/UltraVideoGallery/mp3.swf', 'UVG', '400', '150', "9.0.115", ''); fObj.flashvars = 'portalId=0&baseUrl=/DesktopModules/UltraVideoGallery/&vId=101'; fObj.addParam('wmode', 'transparent'); fObj.addParam('allowFullScreen', 'true'); fObj.addParam('allowScriptAccess', 'always'); //fObj.addParam('wmode', 'transparent'); //When enable transparent background, users may not be able to enter full screen mode if their flash version is less than 9.0.115. //fObj.addParam('bgcolor', '#ffffff'); fObj.write('UVGContainer'); var UVGContainer; UVGContainer = document.getElementById('UVGContainer'); var playingVideoId; function UVG_onVideoLoad(id) { if (id Andrew Robb Mon, 19 Mar 2012 01:32:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1380 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1467/Transcript--2GB-Sydney-with-Andrew-Moore--21-December-2012.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1467 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1467&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1467/Transcript--2GB-Sydney-with-Andrew-Moore--21-December-2012.aspx TRANSCRIPT INTERVIEW WITH ANDREW MOORE 2GB SYDNEY   Topics: Wayne Swan’s budget surplus back-flip, Government overspending on the NBN   E&OE…………………………………………………………………………………….   ANDREW MOORE:   We were inundated yesterday afternoon, after 2 o’clock with callers, emailers, telling us in no uncertain terms what they thought of Wayne Swan and his predictable back-flip over the government’s promise to return the budget to surplus. People were furious; everyone had been saying that this was impossible but yet Wayne Swan, Julia Gillard et al, kept saying, as recently as a week ago, that yes, we’ll be sweet, don’t worry about it, we’ll get to surplus, rubbish!   And again, it’s a hand pass in many ways to the Opposition to again point to the government’s reputation of following through and telling the truth. Andrew Robb is the Shadow Minister for Finance, Deregulation and Debt Reduction, he is on the line. Andrew, nice to talk to you again, how are you?   ANDREW ROBB:   Very good thanks Andrew, how are you?   ANDREW MOORE:   Yeah, excellent. And again, we took this live yesterday until we grew sick of the rhetoric, but this is something that, as we said yesterday, you don’t need to be an economic expert. You need to listen to, I mean, forget about listening to the Opposition on this when they announce where we will be in a Budget surplus, every economic commentator, everyone involved in finance said rubbish, it can’t happen.   ANDREW ROBB:   Everyone knew. Everyone knew, well, I think the Government knew. The Government was saying, they didn’t just promise a surplus, in the last few months they actually said they had delivered it. Coming out of the last Budget, they said we have now delivered a surplus.   Well of course, it was nonsense, everyone knew it was. It just goes again as you said in your opening comments, it is all about breach of trust and integrity. If you can’t trust the government to tell you what is really happening then how can you make business decisions?   That is why there is no investment going on, that’s why people are not spending, there is so much uncertainty.   ANDREW MOORE:   But that was the first reaction everybody had yesterday was, here they go again, they have promised something and it won’t happen. Now a lot of people are saying look, the fact that we are going to stay in deficit for a while isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but why the hell have we been lied to for the last however long?   ANDREW ROBB:   Well even that, you see, they are even spinning this issue of staying with a deficit. The fact of the matter is, Andrew, that taxing and borrowing and spending and debt and deficit – that got the world in to this malaise.   More of the same is not going to fix it, and there is another way. We don’t have to rely on government spending, endless government intervention, more taxes, more debt to carry the economy if they shift the focus to firing up the private sector.   If they took away the uncertainty, if they removed all of the rule changes that they keep making, if they stop putting new taxes on, 27 new taxes on business, you would lower the cost, fire up confidence, see investment, and we wouldn’t need government to be spending money.   ANDREW MOORE:   Well what was your reaction when Wayne Swan was vehemently denying the fact or suggestions that the government had been overspending? ANDREW ROBB:   Well firstly, they have spent an extraordinary $172 billion over the last four years more than they have received in revenue. Now if a household did that sort of thing they would be out backwards, they would be in rented accommodation.   They are just telling lies, they are misrepresenting the facts. Even now, what Wayne Swan is not admitting to people is that revenues are up this year 6 percent more than last year, yet he is claiming that the deficit problem is because revenues are falling. They just live a life of spin and misrepresentation to go from one day until the next. They are not looking at outcomes for people in 12 months time and two years time, and now it is catching up with them.   People are seeing, and they have seen for some time, that you just cannot trust this mob and it then leads to real outcomes for real people in terms of jobs and quality of life and opportunity. They are all being hampered and squashed and frustrated because of a government that has just been in to endless wasteful spending.   ANDREW MOORE:   Well, my word. But the figures that Wayne Swan was releasing yesterday, were you in dispute with those?   ANDREW ROBB:   Well he didn’t even release figures. You see what happened was he came on said, well, we will have a deficit again, the fifth in a row, after the four biggest in our history, and we will have another one the year after that, and then they said to him, well tell us the figures, and he said, I am not going to get in to the detail.   So here we are with a total collapse of their fiscal strategy, their budget strategy, and yet the treasurer of the country is unwilling and unable to tell us now what the numbers are, everyone is in the dark.   ANDREW MOORE:   Well not just the treasurer of the country, yesterday in the role of acting Prime Minister.   ANDREW ROBB:   Exactly! I mean, Julia Gillard said some time ago, you can’t run this country if you can’t manage its budget. Well I think she is absolutely right.   ANDREW MOORE:   That grab is going to be played a few times between now and the election next year. Were you surprised in any way, shape or form of the timing of Wayne Swan’s comments yesterday?   ANDREW ROBB:   What, three minutes before Christmas? No, that was pretty predictable as well.   ANDREW MOORE:   I mentioned yesterday, the only thing that surprised us was that we thought it might come on Christmas eve.   ANDREW ROBB:   And with the Prime Minister with her feet up somewhere. The timing is exquisite Labor timing. They are past masters at the politics and the spin, but in the end, good politics is all about good policy, and that is the big missing link for this government. They are being found out, and I cannot wait until next year.   We have got a program to put together to the people which will show we will start to address the real issues, we will live within our means as a government.   ANDREW MOORE:   But that’s the question though, and that is what a lot of people are already thinking. Assuming the Coalition wins government back next year, assuming all this financial waste that we have seen since 2007 really, how much are you guys going to have to pull in the reigns?   ANDREW ROBB:   We will give a cast iron commitment, as a government, we will live within our means. There are tens of billions of dollars of wasteful spending still occurring, you just take the NBN for instance, Australia must have a National Broadband Network, we will deliver it. It is happening in every country in the world, of course it will be delivered.   But this is the rolled gold, most inefficient, most costly version anywhere in the world that is going on. After four years, 33,000 houses are connected out of seven and a half million houses, would you believe? And it is costing $55 billion! If we come in, that project alone, we will deliver more quickly, more cheaply and at less cost to the community.   ANDREW MOORE:   Well you couldn’t possibly do it in a more expensive manner.   ANDREW ROBB:   We couldn’t but we will engage the private sector. This is my point, there is an alternative. They have gone back to a massive bureaucracy for the most dynamic area of the country, the telecommunications, instead of engaging the private sector and a multitude of different technologies. That is why we will get there quicker, faster and more affordably. That is just one project where we will save tens of billions of dollars.   Now we can do that in so many fronts if we place confidence in the private sector, unlock the mountains of money sitting on balance sheets around this country which is not being invested at the moment because business is so spooked by this government, and its indecision and lack of direction, everyone is sitting on their hands, waiting for an election. Consumers are not spending. They might come and buy a meal but they are not going and buying a $4,000 sofa or a new car or a house. Everyone is sitting on their hands.   That is why the economy is struggling and we have got to shift from this emphasis on government and more debt, more taxes, more spending, and get our private sector fired up. Then we will see the real opportunities that are out there and the jobs being created.   ANDREW MOORE:   Andrew, nice to talk to us, I know you are busy today and have a feeling we will be hearing a lot from you in 2013. Merry Christmas to you, I appreciate your time.     ANDREW ROBB:   You too, Andrew.   ANDREW MOORE:   Andrew Robb, the Shadow Minister for Finance. Andrew Robb Wed, 21 Dec 2011 07:17:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1467 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1284/INTERVIEW-WITH-MARIUS-BENSON-ABC-NEWS-RADIO.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1284 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1284&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1284/INTERVIEW-WITH-MARIUS-BENSON-ABC-NEWS-RADIO.aspx   INTERVIEW WITH MARIUS BENSON ABC NEWS RADIO Thursday, 4 August 2011 CLICK HERE TO PLAY INTERVIEW Topics: Economic uncertainty, crisis of confidence, Labor’s debt.   E&OE………………………………………………………………………    MARIUS BENSON:   Andrew Robb it looks like a shaky old financial world out there between the international markets and the retail figures locally, but the Treasurer says the fundamentals are strong, you disagree?   ANDREW ROBB:   The trouble with the economy is there is no leadership, there’s no direction, in fact I would say there is a crisis of confidence that’s what’s killing retail. That’s what’s worrying the business sector, that’s what’s creating a real problem for manufacturing. There is no investment there is no spending and it is because people do not see that the country has got any leadership.   MARIUS BENSON:   When you say there is no investment I heard a report yesterday saying investment in Australia is running at a 50-year high.   ANDREW ROBB:   The investment in the mining sector is, but really we’ve got the retail sector is now in recession and you’ve got many parts of the manufacturing sector under enormous pressure.   MARIUS BENSON:   But investment is firing.   ANDREW ROBB:   Investment is driven by the resources sector, so you have got a boom in the resources sector, but the trouble is we’ve got other parts of the economy almost or literally in recession. Now if there is a double-dip recession around the world then of course the first thing that will come off is commodity prices as it did in the GFC and we are left as an economy highly exposed.   MARIUS BENSON:   Do you think part of the crisis of confidence is because you are making remarks like that saying that the future is uncertain and very threatening?   ANDREW ROBB:   No, not at all, Wayne Swan is making this accusation, but of course Wayne Swan if you listen to him finds an excuse for everything that goes wrong in the economy …   MARIUS BENSON:   But can I just ask you about the opposition’s point of view, ordinarily an opposition, certainly in the first half of a new government can rely on being ignored, but it’s different this time, the opposition’s voice is much louder because of the minority government set up.   ANDREW ROBB:   The opposition’s concern and probably it’s being listened to far more because Australia has got an enormous opportunity with China and India, but in many respects is wasting the mining boom.   The government should be taking strong measures to ensure that we do restore our economic resilience, we reduce our debt, we get ourselves back into shape to weather any other unforseen economic circumstances ahead.   MARIUS BENSON:   Could I ask you about debt because you are critical of the level of debt that the Labor government has at the moment, but Australia’s debt as a per centage of GDP 22 per cent compares to the United States 97 per cent, a global average of 59 per cent, it is a figure that visitors like Tony Blair and John Keys say, all our figures are the envy of the world and that includes debt.   ANDREW ROBB:   It’s not a question of resting on our laurels, the reason we got through the last global financial crisis much better than all those other economies is because we had no debt in fact we had tens and tens of billions of dollars of surplus and reserves and no debt.   MARIUS BENSON:   Andrew Robb, the Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey says the department of Climate Change is producing unreliable figures. He says it would be disbanded under a Coalition government is that opposition policy to disband the climate change department?   ANDREW ROBB:   We haven’t made any final decisions, but certainly the expenditure that’s going into literally hundreds and hundreds of bureaucrats in that area, if we remove the carbon tax we will remove the need for six new regulatory bodies that are being created; the hundreds of millions of dollars of new expenditure that is being incurred. And there is every reason why that department should be folded back in as part of the Department of Environment. And all of the excessive expenditure with new buildings and all of the rest is then avoided.   MARIUS BENSON:   So every reason to get rid of it, but you haven’t decided to do so yet is that what you are saying?   ANDREW ROBB:   We are making a range of decisions and options as we go forward, but that’s certainly one we are seriously considering.   MARIUS BENSON:   Andrew Robb, thank you very much.         Media Contact:        Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521.   Andrew Robb Thu, 04 Aug 2011 01:25:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1284 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1283/AUSTRALIA-VULNERABLE-GILLARD-OBLIVIOUS.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1283 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1283&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1283/AUSTRALIA-VULNERABLE-GILLARD-OBLIVIOUS.aspx   Monday, 1 August 2011   AUSTRALIA VULNERABLE – GILLARD OBLIVIOUS   As debate rages in the United States about government debt Julia Gillard remains in a state of denial about how vulnerable her government has left the Australian economy.   Today the prime minister made the extraordinary claim that “all government finances are very strong”.   “This comment demonstrates how disconnected Julia Gillard has become from Australian families and businesses,” Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction Andrew Robb said.   “We have a prime minister who thinks raising our debt ceiling to an unprecedented $250 billion – a quarter of a trillion dollars – after inheriting zero debt and $70 billion in reserves translates to a ‘very strong position’. It’s just bizarre.   “At a time when Australians understand the importance of tightening the belt, paying off debt and living within their means, you have a government continuing to borrow billions, blissfully ignorant to the external threats our economy faces.   “On top of this it is going to go it alone on a carbon tax which will further weaken our economic resilience,” Mr Robb said.   Ms Gillard also had no answer when asked how the government could afford further stimulus in the event of another global financial shock from a position of deficit.   “Well, I’m not going to speculate in those kinds of terms,” Ms Gillard said.   Mr Robb said it was little wonder there was a real crisis of confidence across the Australian economy.   “Not only is Julia Gillard oblivious to how vulnerable her government has left us, but she has no idea how she would combat any further threats.   “The Coalition has been urging the government for the best part of two years to rein in its spending and borrowing in a bid to restore the economic resilience it inherited, but it just refuses to heed the warnings,” Mr Robb said.   Media Contact:        Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521.    Andrew Robb Mon, 01 Aug 2011 05:39:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1283 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1281/INTERVIEW-WITH-MARIUS-BENSON-ABC-NEWS-RADIO-Friday-22-July-2011.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1281 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1281&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1281/INTERVIEW-WITH-MARIUS-BENSON-ABC-NEWS-RADIO-Friday-22-July-2011.aspx   Interview with Marius Benson ABC News Radio   Friday 22 July 2011    CLICK HERE TO PLAY THE INTERVIEW     Topics: emissions trading scheme property rights, carbon capture and storage.     E&OE………………………………………………………………………………………   MARIUS BENSON:   Andrew Robb you say there may be difficulties in unwinding a carbon tax because you say it creates a property right which may be hard to challenge.   ANDREW ROBB:   Yes, my point is in the modelling the Treasury have done they have assumed that all of our competitors will at the same time introduce a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme in the same way Australia is proposed to introduce it.   Of course, that is patently wrong. It will be a highly costly and damaging scheme to have in place if we go it alone. Now in that case there will be a property right there will be millions of people trading it, holding it. It will be in super funds and we will face a situation as a country that it will be extraordinarily costly to dismantle such an albatross and there will be a need for massive compensation to wind such a scheme up.   It just shows the folly of again going ahead of the rest of the world, going alone when we are not sure which way the rest of the world will tackle this issue.   MARIUS BENSON:   When you say extremely costly, do you have a figure in mind or at least an order of magnitude?       ANDREW ROBB:   We are talking tens of billions of dollars for either side of politics in the future to wind this scheme up.   MARIUS BENSON:   So, can I just clarify, Tony Abbott has said that he will wind the scheme up if elected, will it go ahead despite that cost?   ANDREW ROBB:   No, if we are elected at the next election it won’t have by that stage become an emissions trading scheme, it will still just be a tax and at that stage it will not be a property right and it will be not costly to wind it up.   MARIUS BENSON:   Can I ask you about some remarks by Malcolm Turnbull last night who says a war is being waged on scientists by people who are fighting climate change action for narrow vested interest, narrow financial interests.   ANDREW ROBB:   Well that is an observation or a commentary by Malcolm I don’t necessarily have a strong view on what’s ….   MARIUS BENSON:   Is he right?   ANDREW ROBB:   Well I don’t know there are people with certainly, many people with different views.   ANDREW ROBB:   What about the idea of comparing the lobbyists who are fighting the carbon tax as Malcolm Turnbull has to the cigarette companies who fought action to curtail smoking?   ANDREW ROBB:   I didn’t hear the speech, but from what I’ve read Malcolm was making the very valid point that it is not sensible to withdraw funding from carbon capture and storage.   I think he might have made the point that because coal is such a cheap source of energy that China and India will be using it for many, many, many decades to come and though I think the rest of the world will be using it as well for that matter.   Therefore it is stupidity really for the Australian government led by the Greens to bring in a $10 billion slush fund as is proposed under their new package which will exclude any expense on carbon capture and storage.   MARIUS BENSON:   Andrew Robb, thank you very much.           Media Contact:        Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521.     Andrew Robb Fri, 22 Jul 2011 02:02:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1281 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1279/BOB-BROWN-BANK-RAISES-SPECTRE-OF-PAST-DEBACLES.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1279 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1279&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1279/BOB-BROWN-BANK-RAISES-SPECTRE-OF-PAST-DEBACLES.aspx   Wednesday, 20 July 2011   ‘BOB BROWN BANK’ RAISES SPECTRE OF PAST DEBACLES   Confirmation that the Gillard Government plans to raise billions of dollars in debt to fund the $10 billion ‘Bob Brown Bank’ shows Labor has learnt nothing from the Tricontinental, W.A Inc. and State Bank of S.A. debacles of the past.   “The fact this government is prepared to borrow billions of dollars more, in the name of taxpayers, to invest in speculative, high-risk clean energy proposals demonstrates how dangerous it has become,” Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction Andrew Robb said.   “After inheriting a debt-free budget this incompetent government has been forced to raise the Commonwealth debt ceiling to a staggering $250 billion, and that was before it cooked up the $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation aka ‘Bob Brown Bank’.   “Labor plans to use dubious accounting practices to keep the money ‘off-budget’, this is a deceptive sleight-of-hand trick, to artificially protect the budget bottom line.   “The ‘Bob Brown’ Bank is a slush fund which will pump billions of dollars into pet projects which conventional financiers would not touch with a barge pole.   “It is another Labor financial disaster in the making and a price Julia Gillard has to pay to cling to power,” Mr Robb said.   “A Coalition government will not guarantee debt raised by this entity nor will we be raising even more government debt through bond sales to finance this outfit.   “Penny Wong absurdly says that by rejecting the ‘funny money’ financing arrangements of this corporation the Coalition is ‘wrecking’ the policy.   “The truth is that we are standing up for taxpayers who are sick and tired of this government’s reckless spending and borrowing and the irresponsible behaviour of the likes of the Finance Minister.   “We are saying enough is enough,” Mr Robb said.   Media Contact:        Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521.      Andrew Robb Wed, 20 Jul 2011 02:40:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1279 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1275/Sky-News-AM-Agenda-with-Kieran-Gilbert-13-July-2011.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1275 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1275&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1275/Sky-News-AM-Agenda-with-Kieran-Gilbert-13-July-2011.aspx     Sky News AM Agenda with Kieran Gilbert     Wednesday, 13 July 2011 Topics: Labor’s carbon tax, Direct Action, Labor’s ‘funny money’   CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE INTERVIEW   E&OE……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….   KIERAN GILBERT:   Mr Robb thank you very much for your time, the Opposition has been critical of the way the government is funding this carbon pricing plan, but wouldn’t the Coalition have more credibility if you provided your own costings for how you would fund your Direct Action plan $3.2 billion worth over the forward estimates?   ANDREW ROBB:   Well we’ve done that once already in a most comprehensive way. We released a policy, February last year and the cost of that was the $3.2 billion against the forward estimates, we then released $50 billion worth of savings to show how we could quite easily manage within the budget the funding of our program.   We’ve got nothing to hide, it’s all out there, it’s been out there in fact for 15-16 months and it never got criticised in the run down to the election, no one said that we weren’t able to fund our Direct Action programs.    So the pressure’s right back on the government, the fact of the matter is that Wayne Swan dismissed the overrun in this package as “broadly budget neutral”, it’s just a total furphy.   You are seeing a $4.3 (billion) which they’ve admitted to and then there’s $3 billion to retire 2,000 megawatts of brown coal generation capacity, which they’re all saying contradictory things, but clearly it must come out of the budget.   Then you’ve got the $10 billion slush fund, the ‘Bob Brown Bank’, which in other ways has been treated on the budget, in this last budget, this particular program which is very similar to things that are within the budget, is now going to be funded from borrowings, you really should say something closer to $17 billion, but there’s certainly a $7 billion black hole without a doubt.   KIERAN GILBERT:   OK, well I want to ask you about that fund in a moment, that $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation, but back to your costings, you said they weren’t criticised, they were criticised extensively, the Treasury and Finance found an $11 billion black hole in the costings and then beyond that Mr Robb, you’ve committed to providing your own tax cuts on top of this other commitment for the Direct Action, so you’ve made a number of other commitments surely there needs to be a revised set of costings doesn’t there?   ANDREW ROBB:   Well there will be. By the time we lead into the election as we’ve made the commitments there will be a very clear set of costings and policy programs laid out for everyone to examine. What I’m saying to you is …..   KIERAN GILBERT:   You’re calling for an election now. The Opposition’s calling for an election now. Should there not be the costings now?   ANDREW ROBB:   If there was an election now the government would be required through the commitments on both sides, the government would be required to lay down the state of the budget and then we would be able to immediately respond with our own costings, but what I’m saying to you is it’s just less than 12 months since we demonstrated that we did have a capacity.   Even if you withdraw those items that were in contention between ourselves and Treasury and bear in mind the difference on that was differences in assumptions in all of those programs, so we don’t concede any of those programs to the Treasury, but even if you put those aside, we still had a surplus budget in the other savings that we had identified.   So we had clearly funded our commitment to a Direct Action program last year which demonstrates our capacity to find savings and to fund programs that we are going to advance.   We will do it again, we will do it again responsibly, we won’t play the sorts of tricks that we are starting to see, the sleight of hand, the smoke and mirrors that’s going on.   They are covering up billions and billions and billions of dollars. They have lost control, the economics of this package are unravelling by the day and they are just making it up as they are going along.   Julia Gillard said yesterday that the money would come for the $3 billion to retire that 2,000 megawatts of generating power, that that would come out of the Contingency Reserve, well the recent budget said that there is no provision in the Contingency Reserve for anything to do with the climate change package, so it’s funny money starting to enter into the government’s funding of their programs.   KIERAN GILBERT:   The Opposition leader has said that you will have your own tax cuts. Can I ask you specifically about this reform that a lot of economists have praised and industry groups, this was the one out of, based out the Henry Review recommendations, lifting the tax-free threshold to upwards of $20,000 from its current position of about $6,000, do you welcome that removing about one million people out of the tax system and would the Coalition keep it or wind that back?   ANDREW ROBB:   Well we have said since the Henry Review was released that we were attracted to raising the tax-free threshold, but what we wouldn’t do is increase the marginal tax rates as the government has in this package.   This is not tax reform, on the one hand they do something that’s got some merit, but they’ve paid for it by taking us back to the 1980s, by being the first increase in marginal tax rates, the 15 goes to 19 and the 30 I think goes to 33 or 35, that is the first increase we’ve seen.    That is a discouragement for people to work longer hours and to make an extra quid to pay for the cost of the carbon tax to pay off their family bills. That’s a discouragement so this government on the one hand does something which is sensible, but pays for it with something that is quite retrograde.   KIERAN GILBERT:   But how would you fund all of these promises? You are promising tax cuts, tax-free threshold increase which would go right up the scale according to what you are saying there. That would cost billions and billions and billions of dollars as well as that the Coalition is saying you would not purchase the least cost abatement from overseas when there is certified abatement done overseas, Greg Hunt says no we are not going to purchase that, how do you make all of the numbers stack up?   ANDREW ROBB:   Well it’s called living within your means Kieran. This government has got no concept of that. We are seeing at the moment eight million families around this country whose savings rate has gone from minus one to plus eleven-and-a-half per cent over the last 12 months.   These are people who because they can’t pay for the twelve and a half per cent increase in electricity prices even since Julia Gillard came to power, because they can’t pay these utility bills and their mortgage rates and all the rest, they are cutting back on spending, they are not spending on things they otherwise would do, they’re deferring expenditure, they are going without, they are living within their means.   This government though continues to ratchet up their rate of spending; they’ll spend a lot more than they will get even in this financial year. They’re borrowing massively still, extra $107 billion that will go up now another $10 billion with this slush fund that we were talking about, therefore we’ve got to as a country live within our means, that’s first and foremost.   KIERAN GILBERT:   On that, why wouldn’t you argue with your colleagues as Finance Minister then let’s look at purchasing abatement from overseas if there is least cost abatement overseas rather than what looks like a cumbersome way of just spending all taxpayer money on funding the polluting industries?   ANDREW ROBB:   Well you think about it Kieran …   KIERAN GILBERT:   If there’s least cost abatement overseas why not use it?   ANDREW ROBB:   Well, we don’t need to use it. What we will do is encourage organisations, companies, to introduce changes to the way in which they are doing things to either store more carbon such as in soil or to reduce the amount of emissions such as in the built environment, the city, the buildings and in factories and others. Now we will fund that, we’ve already established how we would fund it, this government’s going to raise $24 billion across the period of the forward estimates in higher taxes from the tax, this carbon tax.   Our whole program will cost $3.2 billion, when you take out the tax that is going to go to lower income groups and for all the compensation, when you remove that the actual cost, the cost of reducing the amount of emissions is relatively small against the total tax take of this government.    If you take out of the government’s total tax take all of the compensation and all of the churn and the hundreds and hundreds and thousands of new bureaucrats you will find the actual cost of mitigation is probably about 10 per cent of the total tax take.   Now that’s all we have to face is that 10 per cent cost we don’t have to have all that other money.   KIERAN GILBERT:   What about that promise to increase, just one last question, I know you’ve got a busy day ahead, I just want to ask you about the pension increases, there’s going to be an increase to pensioners, self-funded retirees a couple of hundred dollars above their costs.   They are going to get it eight months before the tax comes into play. Will the Coalition keep that magnitude of increase if you are elected at the next election, that you would implement that sort of pension rise?   ANDREW ROBB:   The first thing is Kieran the best compensation is no tax and we will rescind this tax … [interruption]   KIERAN GILBERT:   So you wouldn’t raise the pension by that magnitude?   ANDREW ROBB:   No, no, no what decisions we take in regards to the benefits that will accrue to different sections of the community, we will announce in advance, we have already … [interruption]   KIERAN GILBERT:   So no guarantee then, no guarantee [inaudible] of that magnitude?   ANDREW ROBB:   What I do guarantee is we will lay out well ahead of the election, the tax cuts and other benefits that will accrue to other parts of the community, but we will first and foremost live within our means, not this government which is putting Australia in great jeopardy and vulnerability to any sort of downturn around the world by profligate spending and this madness of a tax.      KIERAN GILBERT:   Shadow Finance Minister Andrew Robb, great to chat, thanks a lot for that.     Media Contact:        Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521.   Andrew Robb Wed, 13 Jul 2011 05:41:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1275 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1280/SPEECH--Statute-Stocktake-Bill-No-1-2011.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1280 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1280&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1280/SPEECH--Statute-Stocktake-Bill-No-1-2011.aspx HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SPEECH - Statute Stocktake Bill (No. 1) 2011 Thursday, 23 June 2011   Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (17:35): I rise to speak on the Statute Stocktake Bill (No. 1) 2011. The purpose of this bill is to repeal 39 redundant special appropriations relating to the Commonwealth's financial framework. This would include the abolition of 39 special appropriations, including the repeal of one statutory special account and 25 redundant acts in their entirety. It is essentially a government housekeeping bill and has no material consequence in relation to the provision of government programs, funding or new policy. The government committed to regular stocktakes of special appropriation vehicles in response to the Operation Sunlight: overhauling budgetary transparency report released in December 2008. The bill is part of an ongoing bipartisan commitment to clean up the statute books, as has occurred through five previous financial framework legislation amendment acts between 2005 and 2010 and a Statute Stocktake (Regulatory and Other Laws) Act 2009. Examples of the types of redundant legislation that this bill seeks to repeal include Papua New Guinea Loan (International Bank) Act 1974,which related to the Commonwealth's guarantee of a loan that PNG took out with the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. This loan has since been repaid, so the act is redundant. Second, the State Grant (Special Assistance to South Australia) Act 1960, which granted financial assistance to South Australia during the 1959-60 financial year. That appropriation has been long spent. While this bill is non-controversial in nature, it poses a question of how many other redundant pieces of legislation remain on the statute book. The government is drawing an extremely long bow in its promotion of this bill as part of its commitment to reducing red tape, at least within the government's own administration. But what it really does, in my view, is remind us of the failures of this government when it comes to reducing red tape and easing the regulatory burden on Australian businesses. Many sectors of our economy are choking in unnecessary red tape, regulations and reporting requirements. I think there has been a cultural shift over many years, and it has been accelerated most significantly in the last four years, where regulation has become a very major cost burden across so many areas of organisations and businesses. It is human nature to want to grow your business and bureaucrats are no different. They want to grow their business, and their business is regulation. They are very good at growing their business. In fact, they are expert at growing their business. In 2007 the Rudd-Gillard government made a big pitch to business based on their commitment to cutting red tape. Labor promised to make life easier for business by pursuing a 'one in, one out' rule for new regulation. They got a lot of mileage out of the one in, one out rule for new regulation. No new law was supposed to be introduced unless an existing one was taken off the books, but instead let's look at the record. Labor have imposed 220 new regulations for each one that they have removed—220 for one, not one for one. It is a huge disparity. The more regulation that government puts on business, the more time, money and effort business people have to divert from real work to filling in forms for bureaucrats in Canberra. The corporate reporting requirements have massively increased across so many areas. Excess red tape and regulation benefits no-one. It only means more costs for business. It stops new jobs, stifles investment, lowers innovation, lessens productivity and ultimately creates a lower standard of living for Australians. The morale of hundreds of thousands of small business people in particular is lowered immeasurably by the significant growth of regulation. The coalition will always be a pro-business party. We have demonstrated that in opposition with the policies we have put forward for small business and the stance we have taken against job-destroying new taxes. The carbon tax and mining tax will undermine our competitive advantage. The carbon tax, which will morph into an ETS, an emissions trading scheme, will be the most bureaucratic scheme you could possibly devise. The eventual emissions trading scheme will not be one scheme; it will be 1,000 schemes because there will be 1,000 Australian companies involved. Already most of those companies have spent in excess of $1 million, some of them several million dollars, seeking to start to comply with the set-up arrangements that are required for this scheme. Thousands of bureaucrats are crawling all over these 1,000 companies, and think of the regulation, intervention and involvement of bureaucracy when you get $10 billion of tax to recycle and churn. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will give you an example of regulation gone mad under this government's watch. Last year the Australian Securities and Investments Commission sent a secret directive to our top financial services companies requiring them to complete an 800-question audit—800 questions. It is breathtaking. And if they make a mistake in that document the next thing is they will be hauled before the courts. These are things that people do not see day to day, but think of the costs, the burden and the nonsense—and the arrogance, for that matter—associated with thinking that they can impose an 800-question audit on all of our financial services companies and expect them to welcome this, to be able to do it without incurring some major costs. Of course, these companies are liable before the courts if they unwittingly get something wrong in that 800-question audit. We have also heard that the Taxation Office has been signalling to many companies and accountants that it will be using its extraordinary investigative powers to sit in and monitor in real time business deals taking place, under the guise of live auditing. If that is so, does the government support such a practice? The fact is that a culture has developed under this government where different organisations—the tax office, ASIC and others—feel that they can now interfere with critical, market sensitive, confidential material and, furthermore, interfere with established corporate governance practices and actually sit at the table when mergers and acquisitions are taking place. This is bizarre, but it is an example of the way in which regulation has gone mad under this government's watch. The coalition is not just going to talk about reducing red tape and regulation; we are going to do something about it, unlike this government, and we are going to do something substantial. For starters, the Leader of the Opposition has announced that for the first time at a federal level we are going to develop a model to put a value on the cost to business of the regulations that are managed by each federal department. Then we are going to take an axe to red tape to the value of $1 billion a year. Our commitment to this $1 billion a year reduction follows the successful adoption of annual dollar based red tape reduction targets by the Victorian government. Victoria's approach to regulatory reform is highly regarded by business. They topped the Business Council of Australia's scorecard of red tape reform in 2007 and 2010, and the Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry is supportive of Victoria's dedicated regulation reduction program. The coalition will recognise the proven success of this deregulation policy and will adapt and refine it. Federal departments will be required to inform a coalition government how many hours small business will spend filling in government paperwork and how much it will cost. This will include things like new software, advice from accountants, training and time spent away from work to learn any new requirements. Departments and bureaucrats will also have to explain how many businesses will be impacted by regulatory changes and how much they will have to do to comply. Any cost provided will need to be examined by the Productivity Commission and it will be transparent and included in departmental annual reports. So the weight of regulation in each department will be assessed for how much it costs typical businesses in a sector, and it will be extended to identify the costs across a sector. With this information in hand, departments will then be set targets for reducing the costs to business of their regulations and the targets will add up to at least $1 billion per annum. It will be a transparent system that will enable a coalition government to properly assess the ability of departments to reduce the costs of their regulations. I think for the first time many of those in the departments will start to consider the cost implications of their regulations. They are looking to increase and extend the nature of their regulatory operations, but this time they will be forced to see the implications of those regulations. Today we are here repealing redundant legislation. In that vein we should be repealing the volumes of legislation and regulations introduced to cover up the activities of the National Broadband Network. The NBN marks an ugly new chapter in government intervention. Australia is the only country in the world that is re-nationalising its telecommunications sector. It is an irony that we are here today repealing redundant and unnecessary legislation when on the same day the government has signed a deal to require Telstra to decommission their fixed copper network to give NBN Co. unfettered, sole access to their pits and ducts and to migrate all of their fixed line customers to the NBN. Telstra will not be able to deliver broadband over their HFC network which currently passes about 2.2 million of Australia's 7.5 million households. To achieve this deal the government has engaged in extortion and blackmail as part of a relentless and sustained attack on one of Australia's great companies. A government monopoly is being created, with all of its attendant inefficiencies. It is being done through more regulation and by removing the transparency that should apply to even a normal corporation. We should be repealing that redundant legislation today because it is being imposed on the most dynamic and innovative sector in our economy. Despite this bill and other legislation today being debated in the Main Committee to also improve the efficiency of legislation, we have seen this government snub its nose at good government, at transparency, at the competitive free enterprise culture in Australia and at its responsibility to efficiently manage taxpayers' dollars by holding a gun to the head of one of our major companies in order to deliver a political outcome for a desperate, dysfunctional government. Remember that this was conceived by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy on an aircraft travelling from Melbourne to Brisbane. This $50 billion investment was conceived without consulting cabinet and getting its approval. It was conceived by two people who were facing the ignominy of a failed $4.7 billion program that they had promised would solve all the problems of the world. This was a decision made for political advantage and not for the advantage of the Australian taxpayer or the telecommunications sector. This was a political decision. Dr Leigh: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order by drawing your attention to standing order 75 relating to irrelevance and tedious repetition. The member for Goldstein is giving the same speech he gave on an unrelated matter in the Main Committee earlier today. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): There is no point of order. Mr ROBB: We just saw another example of the embarrassment that is being caused by the government's announcement today. I thank the member for intervening because all he really did was make my case. This is a bill about repealing redundant legislation and the NBN legislation should certainly be in here. In conclusion, mark my words: we will be back in this chamber at some point in the future to repeal the failed, dangerous and highly wasteful NBN legislation.         Andrew Robb Thu, 23 Jun 2011 07:35:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1280 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1219/Costly-NBN-will-prove-a-super-test-for-the-Gillard-government--The-Australian.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1219 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1219&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1219/Costly-NBN-will-prove-a-super-test-for-the-Gillard-government--The-Australian.aspx WOULD Julia Gillard and Stephen Conroy be willing to link their superannuation payouts to the performance of the National Broadband Network? In essence, this is similar to what they are asking the Australian public to do; namely, invest $50 billion of taxpayers' money on the promise of long-term payback. But when a government drops an important report four or five days before Christmas, the bells start ringing. Releasing just a 160-page corporate plan, when the Prime Minister promised a full business plan of more than 400 pages, immediately confirms suspicions. These were compounded when Gillard spruiked the document as evidence of the project's viability while conveniently ignoring the more than 150 risks identified by NBN Co itself. We should also not lose sight of the fact when the Rudd government first promised to build an NBN the maximum exposure to taxpayers was $4.7bn. Now they are expected to stump up $27.5bn in equity, up from the $26bn "peak investment" identified in the implementation study released in May: all borrowed money On top of this, NBN Co will have to raise a further $13.4bn in debt to complete it. Then there is the $16bn that will have to be paid to Telstra under the proposed deal for the telco to shut down its fixed network and migrate its customers across to the NBN. Gillard's claim that NBN Co will "well and truly" be able to raise its share of the required private debt is misleading and at odds with the corporate plan. NBN Co identifies this requirement as a "major risk" with "no assurance that this level of debt could be issued". We all remember that when this project was announced in April last year the government made out that Australian mums and dads and other domestic private investors would be knocking themselves over to fund the NBN. "There couldn't be a better investment," Wayne Swan claimed. This was all false hype and spin to fit the nation-building image. NBN Co says the bulk of its debt will have to be raised overseas because the Australian market is unlikely to provide this level of resource. The company then states in black and white that a failure to raise debt would require revising the funding plan "to assume a higher level of government equity". The corporate plan also goes on to state that the failure to achieve budgeted construction costs is a "significant risk"; a shortage of skilled labour, a complicating factor. Also ignored by the government are the number of serious risks NBN Co has identified to its best-case revenue projections, including the continued uptake of wireless services and the cherry picking by competitors of the most lucrative areas of the market. The requirement for a cross-subsidy, in which metro users will pay higher prices to subsidise the many unviable parts of the network, also undermines the plan. And how can we ignore the best-case prediction that NBN Co is hoping for an internal rate of return of just 7 per cent, which the company concedes is lower than you would expect for a commercial business case? You can get that on a five-year bank term deposit with no risk whatsoever. What's more, as outlined in the corporate plan, there are numerous examples where the internal rate of return could fall below the present 10-year bond rate. For instance, if cherry picking occurred, the internal rate of return would fall to 5.4 per cent. This would place in doubt the NBN's classification as a public non-financial corporation and its scope to be off budget. Any explicit government guarantee would have the same effect. There are also the warnings about the dangers associated with the rollout itself, with tens of thousands of people working at heights close to power lines. Ominously, the business plan warns "the probability of an accident is high". When you consider the disaster that was the government's insulation program, you can see why Tony Abbott says the NBN has the potential to be "pink batts on steroids". It is no wonder Penny Wong remained silent during the press conference to release the corporate plan, for no finance minister worth their salt could possibly support it. Conroy made the absurd remark that there was no point doing a cost-benefit analysis because it would be based on a "flawed assumption this is losing money". Think of the opportunity cost in other priority areas, the 50 world-class hospitals you could build or the investment in new power generation to ease pressure from rising energy prices. The dynamic and ever-changing communications sector is the last area in which the government should be investing such vast sums of taxpayers' money. No one denies the importance of broadband but there are certainly more sensible and affordable ways of improving services in underserviced regions. Gillard also needs to clarify her position in relation to the privatisation of the NBN five years after its completion. The Australian Greens, who will control the Senate from July, of course want it to remain a millstone around taxpayers' necks in perpetuity. Regardless of the government's desire, the Greens may get their wish if this project lacks the viability to attract a buyer and taxpayers will be left to prop it up, with its annual operating costs approaching $3bn. Bear in mind that not even NBN Co thinks this project will break even until 2021. Gillard and Conroy's super payouts may be guaranteed, but the failure to do a cost-benefit analysis before spending $50bn on the NBN demonstrates this government is no care and no responsibility. Andrew Robb Sun, 26 Dec 2010 23:46:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1219 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1218/Profligate-PM-has-to-curb-spending--The-Age.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1218 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1218&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1218/Profligate-PM-has-to-curb-spending--The-Age.aspx For the first time in more than two decades, Australian households are saving about 10 per cent of their disposable incomes – and it's time the Gillard government followed suit. Just five years ago, Australians were in negative territory, spending more than they earned, but households and businesses have tightened their belts since the global financial crisis and are making real efforts to repay debt. At the peak of the crisis in November 2008, Australian business owed $774 billion. Less than two years later, debt stands at $678 billion. The Reserve Bank notes a “rethinking of attitudes of debt and spending” at family and business levels which the bank's assistant governor, Philip Lowe, says would lead not only to "a lowering of risk in household balance sheets, but it would reduce inflationary pressures during the period of high investment”. While Australian households and businesses have quickly identified the importance of living within their means since the crisis, the Rudd-Gillard government has been inexplicably flat-footed. There is no sense of urgency in restoring the budget resilience that the government inherited. Many Australians find it difficult to fathom, for example, why the government would spend a further $20 billion in stimulus spending through to 2012, for a total of $88 billion. The government borrows $100 million every day. This means it is competing directly with businesses and households for finance, which has led to higher interest rates and severe cost pressures on families. This is all part of Labor's panicked response to a single quarter of negative growth in 2008. Imagine if there had been two. Net debt is set to peak at $94.4 billion. In the first three months of this financial year, Labor racked up a budget deficit of $25.2 billion, the biggest ever. There is a culture of tax, spend and borrow ingrained in this government and bad habits are hard to break. Despite these realities, the likes of the Finance Minister, Penny Wong, boast about “the fastest fiscal consolidation since the 1960s”. Let's put this claim in some perspective. It is based on comparisons with Australia's two previous biggest budget deficits, in 1983-84 (3.3 per cent of gross domestic product) and 1992-93 (4 per cent of GDP). These were eclipsed only by Labor's 2009-10 budget deficit of 4.3 per cent of GDP. When you have embarked on a rapid fiscal expansion, it is easy to implement an apparently sizeable consolidation when income picks up because of, say, Chinese demand. This can be achieved while doing little to cut government spending. Labor doesn't get that they shouldn't have got the books in such a mess to start with, and that they should be repairing the damage more quickly to take pressure off interest rates. The debate about banking competition should be viewed in this context. The government in its response lost sight of the key issue that sparked the row – the banks were raising interest rates over and above the level prescribed by the Reserve Bank. Australians are being squeezed by the highest interest rates in the West. There are disturbing reports that six families are vacating their houses each day because they can no longer afford their mortgages, and thousands of others are under threat. Wayne Swan's banking proposals are big on politics but will do nothing to address this fundamental issue. Changes proposed by the Treasurer could have the perverse effect of further enhancing the position of the big four banks and driving interest rates higher. If the government was serious about addressing the pressure families are under – cutting back its spending and borrowing would be the most obvious step – the government would no longer be out there competing with the credit unions and building societies for funds. And it would get a lot of praise for doing something constructive and positive. Had Labor's spending and borrowing been reined in this year, interest rates, debt and the budget deficit would be lower and Australians would be heading into 2011 with a lower risk of interest rate rises. Confronted as they are by cost-of-living pressures, households and businesses deserve much credit for giving the Gillard government a valuable lesson on the importance of living within our means. Andrew Robb Sun, 26 Dec 2010 23:44:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1218 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1216/Household-Savings-Put-Labor-To-Shame.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1216 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1216&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1216/Household-Savings-Put-Labor-To-Shame.aspx In its latest shot across the bows of the Gillard government, the RBA has highlighted new data which shows Australian households are giving Labor a strong lesson in how to live within its means. Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction Andrew Robb said the latest data shows that while households are tightening their belts, saving more and repaying debt, Labor was continuing to spend and borrow at record levels. “Australian households are saving more than 10 per cent of their disposable incomes, the highest levels since the late 1980s, while the Gillard government is recklessly borrowing $100 million a day to fund billions of dollars in continued stimulus spending,” Mr Robb said. Last night RBA Assistant Governor Philip Lowe said within households there had been “a rethinking of attitudes of debt and spending following the events in the global economy over the past few years. “In preparing our forecasts we have, for some time, been assuming that the household saving rate stays high for quite a while yet. If this were to occur, not only would it lead to a lowering of risk in household balance sheets, but it would reduce inflationary pressures during the period of high investment.” Mr Robb said that while Australian households understood the importance of living within their means, the Gillard government just didn’t get it. “The culture of reckless spending and borrowing is ingrained in this government, which has presided over the most wasteful programs in this nation’s history. “It seems incapable of changing its ways, despite constant, pointed warnings from the RBA, Treasury, Finance, economists, business, the Auditor General and others for over 12 months now. “Australian households are putting this government to shame despite the increased cost of living pressures they are experiencing, through higher interest rates, which are being compounded by Labor’s profligacy,” Mr Robb said. Media Contact: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Thu, 09 Dec 2010 04:11:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1216 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1215/Interview-with-Marius-Benson-ABC-NewsRadio.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1215 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1215&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1215/Interview-with-Marius-Benson-ABC-NewsRadio.aspx Topics: banking, industrial relations E&OE MARIUS BENSON: Andrew Robb, federal cabinet is expected to sign off measures today to give the smaller banks, the building societies, the credit unions a leg up in competition with the big four banks. A step in the right direction? ANDREW ROBB: Well let’s see what they propose. Certainly something has to be done. The botching in many respects of the Government’s guarantees that they put in place during the global financial crisis led to the departure of so much competition in the banking sector and the Government must take some very positive steps to try and turn that around. MARIUS BENSON: We’ve got a rough idea of what the Government has in mind. It will provide some guarantees to the smaller institutions and it will give the ACCC, the Competition and Consumer Commission, new powers to regulate price signalling and also to investigate fees. Are they the sort of measures that are appropriate? ANDREW ROBB: Well they sound like a start but I’ll need to see the detail of it. But overwhelmingly what needs to be done is to increase the liquidity available to the regional banks and other institutions beyond the big four. MARIUS BENSON: Can I turn to industrial issues because the Australian Financial Review is reporting this morning that unions are increasing the threat of strikes using Labor’s Fair Work industrial laws. Do you see that as a problem? ANDREW ROBB: Well, our situation is that we will spend this three years examining how the laws that have been brought in by the Gillard Government, how they’re working against what they said would happen. We’re not going to make change for changes sake. But if industry puts forward a compelling case that Gillard’s laws have tipped the balance the other way, in other words they’ve gone much further than getting rid of Work Choices, then we’ll make that assessment and we’ll respond at the next election as we always said we would going into the last election. MARIUS BENSON: What’s industry saying to you now? You’ve been quoted as saying business is getting restless. ANDREW ROBB: Well, we’ve had, I’ve had and others have had, a series of anecdotal examples given to us about things that they’re concerned about. If this makes a compelling case that the Gillard Government has seriously moved on from what they said they would, then we will look to, we will look to put appropriate changes at the next election. MARIUS BENSON: Why is it up to business to make the case against the Government when the Opposition makes the case against the Government in all other areas? ANDREW ROBB: Well the thing is we’re not looking to make change for changes sake. We need to understand that the changes that are being made, well we need to be convinced that changes that are being made, if they have gone beyond, well beyond getting rid of Work Choices and reverted back to a situation, you know, of decades ago, then there is a case for correction. MARIUS BENSON: Can you say at this distance whether you will be proposing changes to the Labor Party’s industrial laws at the next election or whether you’ll be fulling endorsing them? ANDREW ROBB: What I can say to you is that we will spend the next three years exhaustively looking at how these laws are impacting on business because in many respects, the highest productivity opportunities are when you’ve got a truly flexible and fair work place. Now if it has been tilted too far the other way and the unions are back in town in terms of dictating what happens in the workplace… MARIUS BENSON: Do you see on the evidence, to date, any evidence that the unions are, in your phrase, back in town? ANDREW ROBB: Well, we’ve heard anecdotal evidence, it’s now our, it’s now our responsibility with industry, to explore and examine, you know, whether this widespread, whether it’s a case of the legislation allowing it to happen or whether they’re simply acting in a unilateral way. And if there’s a need for change, we’ll put that to the people. MARIUS BENSON: Andrew Robb, thank you very much. ANDREW ROBB: Thanks Marius. Andrew Robb Mon, 06 Dec 2010 03:53:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1215 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1212/NBN-Co-Unwittingly-Exposes-Labors-900-Million-Budget-Black-Hole.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1212 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1212&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1212/NBN-Co-Unwittingly-Exposes-Labors-900-Million-Budget-Black-Hole.aspx The Gillard Government’s NBN Co has unwittingly exposed a $900 million black hole in Labor’s budget through the 36-page Business Case Summary released by the Prime Minister. Shadow Minister for Finance, Andrew Robb, said the long-term bond rate used by NBN Co in its business case is 5.4 per cent. “This reflects the rate used by the Coalition in costing its election interest savings measure related to not borrowing $18 billion over the forward estimates for the NBN. “In costing the Coalition’s policy following the election, Treasury used a bond rate of just 4.9 per cent and consequently we were fitted up with a supposed $900 million black hole. “This was a flawed assumption, as demonstrated by the NBN Co business case. Therefore, it is Labor that has a $900 million hole in its budget,” Mr Robb said. The Coalition used the average of the last six months of the 10 year bond rate – 5.5 per cent – on the advice of various market experts in the infrastructure financial sector. “We got fitted up with a supposed black hole on the very basis of Treasury’s flawed assumption of 4.9 per cent. Not only does this confirm that the long-term bond rate we applied was a superior assumption than that used by Treasury to undermine our costing, but it also means Penny Wong has a serious problem. “Instead of myth-making about the Coalition, Penny Wong needs to come out today and explain how she is going to fill the $900 million black hole Labor has due to the application of an obviously flawed assumption, in relation to the appropriate long-term bond rate,” Mr Robb said.   “This embarrassment for the government poses the question of how many other assumptions were made in the budget by Treasury to minimise expenses and maximise revenue in order to deliver a surplus in 2012-13. “As we have said on many occasions, Labor’s budget is a house of cards,” Mr Robb said. Media Contact: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Thu, 25 Nov 2010 23:15:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1212 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1213/Financial-Framework-Legislation-Amendment-Bill-2010.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1213 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1213&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1213/Financial-Framework-Legislation-Amendment-Bill-2010.aspx I rise to speak on the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill 2010.  As noted by the member for Brand, when he introduced this bill on 30 September, this is the seventh Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill since 2004. These bills have continued the coalition’s work to promote transparent and accountable government finances for Australian government departments, agencies, Commonwealth authorities and companies which are predominately contained in the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997. This bill, in particular, seeks to update the framework, improve operational efficiency and assist with the operation of interjurisdictional entities. Firstly, the bill repeals 20 redundant special appropriations, including six acts in their entirety. Secondly, the bill seeks to improve the governance framework, established by the FMA Act and the CAC Act, both of which govern the management and accountability of Commonwealth agencies, authorities and the executive arm of the government. The bill will allow ministers to delegate certain functions under the CAC Act to departmental secretaries, relating to the oversight of Commonwealth authorities and Commonwealth companies. It also seeks to allow relevant state and territory ministers to request information about FMA Act agencies and Commonwealth authorities operating under the CAC Act. Thirdly, the bill consolidates the Australian Institute of Criminology with the Criminology Research Council into a single agency, while also transferring them from the CAC Act to the FMA Act. It also seeks to transfer the governance of the Australian Law Reform Commission from the CAC Act to the FMA Act. Further, the National Transport Commission will be brought under the CAC Act as it currently sits outside existing frameworks, other than for its annual reporting. The coalition broadly supports this amending legislation. However, I draw the attention of the House to page 5.2 of the Department of Finance and Deregulation’s red book, the incoming government brief, publicly released on 1 October, which stated: Through this Bill— the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment bill 2010— there is also an opportunity for the Government to reconfirm its support for a strong financial framework dealing with Commonwealth resources by expanding the definition of ‘proper use’ to  include ‘economical’. While proper use already includes ‘efficient, effective and ethical’, inclusion of the word ‘economical’ will increase the focus on the level of resources the Commonwealth applies to achieve outcomes. This was the department’s subtle way of acknowledging the government’s reckless waste and mismanagement across myriad programs over the past three years and the need for something to be done about it. Even though the language was somewhat tortuous, it was quite pointed for a department to advise its own government in such a significant way about the monumental waste and mismanagement of which we have seen endless examples, such as the $2.8 billion pink batts debacle. That program was rushed out and led to 207 house fires, 4,000 potential cases of fraud and, tragically, four deaths. It was one of the monumental policy failures in this country’s history. We also saw the $850 million solar panel scheme blow-out. We saw the dumping of the $275 million Green Loans program. We saw $6 billion to $8 billion wasted in delivering the $16.2 billion school hall program, with state schools paying twice as much per square metre as Catholic schools for the same buildings—a disgrace to proper management in anyone’s language. We saw the embarrassing implementation of the Indigenous housing program. We saw the $1 billion blow-out in the Computers in Schools program. We saw the $1 billion blow-out due to the Labor government’s loss of control of our nation’s borders. We saw the gross waste and mismanagement of our $4 billion-a-year foreign aid budget. We saw $1.5 million spent to send 113 delegates to the Copenhagen conference. We saw the failed GroceryWatch website set up and shut down at a cost of $10 million. We saw the bungled Fuelwatch scheme and, of course, the $43 billion NBN, which we now know is $50 billion—from $4.7 billion originally. And now we see a project cost— Mr Ripoll and Mr Husic interjecting— Mr ROBB—If you do not know what a project cost is, go back to accounting 101. See what the cost is to the community: $50 billion. Some in the industry are saying it is $55 billion. The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—The members for Oxley and Chifley will restrain themselves. Mr ROBB —So it has gone from $4.7 billion to $43 billion, and the Prime Minister stood up here today and tried to dissemble, saying, ‘Well, you only look at capex, of course; you don’t look at what the NBN has to pay to Telstra.’ This is real money. It is not like the $600 that the now Treasurer said was not real money before he got into office. It is real money. Get over it and start concentrating on how you can pay it back. With the NBN we have seen the scope to produce the greatest level of waste this country has ever seen. This has been further highlighted by this government’s refusal to conduct a cost-benefit analysis despite the fact that it promised, before coming into office, that every significant infrastructure project would have a cost-benefit analysis. Not one significant infrastructure project in the last three years has seen a cost-benefit analysis. Nothing has been released. There has been politics writ large with every major decision, from the school halls program to the road decisions to the NBN: politics, politics, politics and spin. There has been not one cost-benefit analysis. Yet, go back and see what the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport said unambiguously and endlessly before the 2007 election: that this government, if it got into government, would undertake one and release it in a transparent way. Such a litany of waste and mismanagement has never been seen in the history of this country. It is the most egregious and devastating waste and mismanagement, and this government stands condemned. This waste and mismanagement is one of the principal reasons the government came so close to losing the election despite the fact that, around the world and in Australia, a first-term government is hardly ever tossed out—in fact, it has only happened once in Australia’s history. Only recently the Australian National Audit Office also revealed that taxpayers are not getting value for money in up to three-quarters of government purchases. The ANAO concluded that government agencies failed to routinely compare prices when direct sourcing goods and services worth a mere $10.2 billion a year. Again, the now retired former Minister for Finance and Deregulation said endlessly that the government had sought to improve and upgrade the sorts of processes required by government agencies. Now we see that it has failed to routinely compare prices across $10.2 billion worth of goods and services. The report stated: For 74 per cent of the Direct Source procurements in the ANAO sample, agencies were unable to demonstrate whether the procurement gave them value for money. In the majority of cases there was a lack of evidence of any comparative analysis of the relevant costs and benefits of different procurement options to support the procurement decision. All this waste is occurring when interest rates are going up, with the average mortgage holder paying up to $6,000 more on interest payments than they were a year ago. Cost-of-living pressures are increasing, with household bills continuing to rise and a budget built on the back of more than $40 billion worth of new taxes since 2008. The government continues to borrow $100 million a day and does not have the courage to make the tough decisions to rein in its reckless spending. This has all contributed. It is a matter of good governance, transparency and strong financial management. Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand there is a need to sum up quickly. I had other comments to make on this. What I do foreshadow is that we have sought to move an amendment. We sought in the other place to move a private member’s bill, which failed to gain support, to introduce the need for the notion of value for money to be included within this act to ensure that there is a proper focus on the requirements to properly look after the nation’s finances. That was unsuccessful. We foreshadowed an amendment to introduce value for money along the lines consistent with what the Department of Finance and Deregulation have recommended. We were unable to get agreement from the government but they have agreed to an amendment, I understand, where we would include ‘economical’, instead of ‘value for money’, as recommended by the Department of Finance and Deregulation. So I will move that amendment in due course when other speakers have concluded. In conclusion, while the amendment I will formally move today is a small amendment to the FMA Act, it will be a further step in reminding this government of the obligation it has to every Australian taxpayer. The coalition does not oppose the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. It builds on the work carried out by the Howard government between 2004 and 2007. I commend the bill to the House.   Andrew Robb Thu, 25 Nov 2010 01:42:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1213 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1211/Interview-with-Chris-Uhlmann-ABC-24.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1211 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1211&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1211/Interview-with-Chris-Uhlmann-ABC-24.aspx Topics: OECD report on Australian economy, banking reform E&OE CHRIS UHLMANN: To talk about the Coalition’s view of this OECD report, I’m joined by the Opposition finance spokesman – Andrew Robb, good morning. ANDREW ROBB: Yeah, hi Chris. CHRIS UHLMANN: First things first though, it does give the Government a big tick for the way it handled the Global Financial Crisis, because it’s not just the strength of China and India it says, or the fact the economic fundamentals are good, but that the Government responded quickly. ANDREW ROBB: Well they did say that the Government did respond quickly. And they said also that it’s many years of surpluses and good policy, which you don’t hear from the Government, but many years of good policy, left a situation where the Government could embark on a sensible balance of monetary and fiscal policy. And they then go on the criticise the fact that the monetary policy is doing most of the heavy lifting and that the fiscal policy, the Government has really been very shy about doing what it has to do – the hard decisions… CHRIS UHLMANN: Well it does say that it’s got a good exit strategy. That in fact the way that the stimulus is drawn down is done well. ANDREW ROBB: Look, I think the big thing about this OECD report is we all know how it comes about. There’s a Treasury official full time in the OECD, the office has come out here, it has always reflected the view of Treasury. That is, that’s what we all know in this town. CHRIS UHLMANN: So you’re saying the points of criticism are actually Treasury criticising the Government. ANDREW ROBB: Well the thing is, this is a stinging rebuke. It makes a couple of concessions about the timing and nature of fiscal stimulus, but of course Treasury recommended those. Almost the rest of the document or the report is a stinging rebuke of the Government on all of its pet policies, all of its pet policies. So to me, reading it, first thing this morning, I thought this is a situation where the Government has virtually lost the confidence of the Treasury. It’s quite an extraordinary situation. I’ve never seen a report which is so stinging in its rebuttal of so much of what a Government is doing. CHRIS UHLMANN: That rebuts many of the things that you were talking about as well. It talks about the resource rent tax and says that the base should be broader than it is now, that it should be applied to all commodities and all companies – and you don’t want it to apply to any. ANDREW ROBB: Well it’s a Treasury view. You look, even the Treasury language about a carbon tax, sooner rather than later, it’s almost taken extracts from Treasury reports and put it out there. It is always reflecting very largely the Treasury view and we don’t tug the forelock to do everything that the Treasury says. I suppose my point is though, that this is most unusual report in the sense that it does take issue, very strong issue, with so many things like you mentioned, the NBN, like the mining tax – it said this is a tax that will now not go anywhere near the revenue that it was meant to, etc. etc. So, the Government in many ways, and you saw it in the red book itself, has lost the confidence of the Treasury. It’s a very dangerous situation and it does reinforce the view that the Government has lost its direction. CHRIS UHLMANN: Alright, even leaving that to one side, that was the point of view and the point of view is that you have an even more divergent view with Treasury than the Government does… ANDREW ROBB: On some issues. CHRIS UHLMANN: … like the GST, do you believe that you should broaden the base and raise the tax? ANDREW ROBB: No we don’t. No we don’t. But on some issues we strongly agree with the Treasury and that is it reeked this whole report of a Government wasting a mining boom, that it’s frittering away the proceeds of a mining boom on current expenditure. It sort of made those sorts of points. You can see the frustration in Treasury that the opportunity for real reform, now, and the opportunity for strong fiscal policy – cutting expenditure, making sure that we get back in the black as quickly as possible so that the mining boom can then be put to long term good use. CHRIS UHLMANN: While it’s critical of some things, it says that the NBN hold potentially large promise. ANDREW ROBB: Yes but then goes on to say most of the ways in which it is being introduced will guarantee or likely lead to significant loss of competition – that’s what we’ve been saying – replacing one monopoly with another big Government monopoly. And we’ve spent the last thirty years on both sides of politics trying to get rid of Government monopolies or essentially private sector activities, things the private sector can do far more efficiently. And that’s again what Treasury and OECD is saying about the Government. It’s quite an extraordinary thing that Ken Henry is really laying out his dissatisfaction with all the key arms of Government policy. CHRIS UHLMANN: Well I’m sure he’d say that that’s an interpretation. Can I take you to one last thing before we leave, and that’s the idea that you’re going to legislate now, the ACCC are going to have more powers over banks. In this instance, that you would stop the practice of price signalling, how on earth is that going to work without limiting the way banks discuss things in public? Won’t that be the outcome of it? It won’t just be banks, will it, it’ll be all businesses. ANDREW ROBB: It’ll be all businesses and it will require the exercise of judgement by the ACCC, that’ll be a key element of it. But it is one way of us demonstrating that, something that the ACCC has been looking for, for a long time, particularly in relation to petrol, but in relation to other industries, that things can be done. The Government’s still talking about a month away - they’ve been caught on the hop. Ultimately though Chris, what we need to see in this whole area is a son of Wallace. We need another major area of financial reform. The competition build up over twenty five years has been decimated in the last eighteen months/two years. And all of these issues need to be addressed on a wide canvass. CHRIS UHLMANN: Andrew Robb, thank you. ANDREW ROBB: My pleasure. Andrew Robb Wed, 24 Nov 2010 01:12:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1211 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1210/Governments-third-birthday-nothing-to-celebrate--The-Punch.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1210 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1210&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1210/Governments-third-birthday-nothing-to-celebrate--The-Punch.aspx The infamous ‘gang of four’, making all government decisions, came to symbolise the style of the first term of the Rudd-Gillard Government, and is reminiscent of the first chaotic days of the Whitlam years. In 1972 Gough Whitlam and Lance Barnard were sworn in as an absurd two-man ministry making a raft of two-man decisions, which set the scene for three years of extraordinary incompetence and profligacy. Today, marks the third anniversary of the election of the current government and it can be argued that Labor’s abandonment of cabinet government, and centralisation of power around a select few, similarly set it down the pathway to the mess it is now in. This government has been plagued by the ‘home handyman syndrome’ – starts countless jobs, but finishes none of them properly. This has come about due to a total focus on controlling the politics of the 24-hour media cycle, combined with appalling management skills. It is a government that has lacked the courage to make tough decisions; a poll-driven approach, obsessed with not wanting to offend anybody. As a result, marketing has dominated, rather than the required oversight and attention to detail essential for successful implementation. The multi-billion-dollar waste encountered with the school building program, the pink batts disaster and its ill-conceived $43 billion-plus NBN are prime examples. It is a government that also used the Global Financial Crisis as a Trojan horse to justify an old-style Labor interventionist agenda which involved among the biggest spending and borrowing sprees in our nation’s history. We are the only government in the world which re-regulated its labour market in the middle of the financial meltdown, the only country renationalising its telecommunications sector, the only country seeking to nationalise 40 per cent of its mining sector, the only country seeking to remove private health insurance, kill off employee share ownership and which sought to introduce a massively bureaucratic and high-taxing emissions trading scheme. The government without doubt overreacted to the GFC and by continuing to borrow $100 million a day to fund recession like spending levels, it is placing continued pressure on inflation and interest rates. Labor was elected on a promise to ease cost of living pressures, but under their watch we have seen seven consecutive interest rate rises which have resulted in the average mortgage holder paying around $6000 more a year. The government has been exposed for raising unrealistic expectations and for failing to make a difference. Labor knifed Kevin Rudd as leader, because Julia Gillard conceded the government “had lost its way”. Yet since the change of leadership, nothing else has changed. Julia Gillard looks a diminished figure who lacks authority and all the same problems remain unsolved. It is a government that looks to be out of its depth. The government’s border protection policy has unravelled at the seams, the mining tax remains a mess and after walking away from an ETS, Julia Gillard took just three weeks to break her election promise not to pursue a carbon tax this term. There is also a sense of despair and depression sweeping across the Murray Darling Basin as the consequence of the uncertainty surrounding Labor’s water management policy paralysis. Shops are closing, retailers are reporting sales 25 per cent lower than their previous worst years and young people are heading to the cities. The Gillard government is also beholden to the Greens, and this will become of even greater concern when the Greens hold the balance of power in the Senate from next July. The renewed push for a carbon tax, a tougher mining tax, gay marriage, calls for a new government bank, regulated control of interest rates and a desire to walk away from the privatisation of the NBN, are Greens priorities. Labor may be in government, but the Greens are in power with the tail already wagging the dog. This is a bad government. Its belief that government knows best, and its propensity to tackle every problem by taxing, borrowing and spending, is putting Australia in a highly vulnerable position if the world economy takes another dip. Labor’s third birthday in government is nothing to celebrate – it is a time for fundamental change. Don’t hold your breath. Andrew Robb Wed, 24 Nov 2010 00:02:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1210 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1209/Commonwealth-Electoral-Amendment-Bill-Political-Donations-and-Other-Matters.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1209 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1209&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1209/Commonwealth-Electoral-Amendment-Bill-Political-Donations-and-Other-Matters.aspx I rise to speak on and strongly oppose the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2010. Let there be no mistake: this bill is, first and foremost, an attempt by the Labor Party to aid its own political and financial position under the guise of transparency and reform. The reintroduction of this bill by the Labor Party is to fulfil their obligations under the Labor-Greens-Independents alliance—the tail wagging the dog. We are seeing it endlessly and it is already causing enormous confusion across so many policy fronts for those on the other side of the chamber. This is essentially the third iteration of the same bill. Ironically, it follows Coalition calls for a comprehensive inquiry into Australia’s campaign finance laws following the Wollongong sex-and-bribery scandal, a call that was made in good faith and, as we understood at the time, that good faith was to be reciprocated. But what we found is that was opposed by the government. They did give an indication that they were willing to act in good faith for an objective assessment across the board of Australia’s campaign finances. The government subsequently announced the development of a green paper, which we applauded, for electoral reform. Yet ahead of dealing with that green paper, we see a series of cherry-picked amendments, as represented in this bill today, which would essentially advantage the Labor Party: ‘Forget the holistic approach. Forget acting in good faith with each other. Let’s just bring in some grubby amendments to try to disadvantage the coalition parties.’ There was a mad rush to bring these amendments in before the last election. There was no coincidence about that! They tried to get it all passed before we rose last time. The cynicism was exposed, the self-interest was exposed and the crass political nature of these provisions were exposed.   Once again the bill reinforces that electoral reform should not be done in an ad hoc fashion nor cherry-picked for political advantage but needs to be undertaken in a holistic sense as part of a large suite of electoral reforms. This bill contains provisions that primarily discourage business donations. In fact, that is its objective, primarily to discourage donations to one side of politics. We have measures such as that of reducing the disclosure threshold from $11½ thousand, indexed to the consumer price index annually, to $1,000, non-indexed, a measure directed at the heart of small business donations to the Coalition parties. We see that the bill requires people who make gifts above the threshold, to candidates or members of groups during the election disclosure period, to furnish a return within eight weeks of the calling of an election. This is a blatant attempt to put the frighteners on small businesses and other businesses who are quite happy to reveal a donation. But to do so and making it public in the context of an election campaign makes it possible for political actions to be taken and makes it possible for intimidation to occur and makes it possible to discourage others who might have the ‘affront’ to make a donation of more than $1,000 to the coalition parties.   It also makes unlawful the receipt of a gift of foreign property by political parties, candidates and members of a Senate group — and we have been quite open-minded about exploring those sorts of issues in a more holistic bill. It prohibits all anonymous gifts above $50 except in two specified situations — again, Labor’s penchant for bureaucracy. This will be unmanageable for so many thousands of volunteers around the country, but in the interests of discouraging donations to my side of politics that does not worry the Labor Party. It also provides that public funding of election campaigning is limited to declared expenditure incurred by the eligible political party, candidate or Senate group or the sum payable calculated on the number of first preference votes received where they have satisfied the four per cent threshold, whichever is the lesser — again a provision that we would be prepared to discuss; we would be prepared to discuss versions of it in the context of a holistic approach.   The new arrangements are set to commence on 1 July 2011. Of course, there is no mention of the privileged and irregular position of the unions in any part of this bill. It is all directed at those people who primarily form part of our support base and who would be keen to see our side of politics sufficiently armed with resources to announce an effective campaign and to put our case for government. But there is no mention of the privileged and irregular position of the unions in regard to political donations and there is no mention of third parties—all the issues that must be addressed if there is to be a balanced approach. These are issues that are fundamental to seeing a balanced approach and for the community to have confidence in the laws that regulate political donations.   What lies at the heart of this bill is Labor’s real agenda to shore up its own fortunes while at the same time severely hampering those of its political opponents. Of course, the significant direct and indirect support provided by the union movement, amounting to over $65 million in the years prior to the 2007 election, is not addressed in this bill. The bill is also silent on the intervention of third parties, such as GetUp!, Greenpeace, the Wilderness Society and the like, in the political process. The historical trend has been that unions continue to provide massive support to the Labor Party while businesses have either split donations on a 50-50 basis or have withdrawn their support for the funding of political parties altogether.   Much of that 50-50 split and/or the withdrawal of funding altogether has resulted after a concerted campaign over the last 15 years by the Labor Party to intimidate so many businesses around this country. There has been a concerted campaign to identify those donors from the electoral rolls and, by other anecdotal advice, to identify smaller donors and for Labor Party heavies to physically meet with the heads of those companies over a period of time, which has had the effect of either forcing a 50-50 split of donations or, in many cases, discouraging any donations at all.   In terms of delegates to the ALP conference, affiliated unions make up 427 voting members and party members make up only 426. Unions also retain their 50 per cent share of selection committees. There is a great funding source. It is a group that largely dictates to the Labor Party, and yet there is no mention of the propriety or the arrangements of many of the donations that are passed through from the union movement. New South Wales ALP members who are members of affiliated unions number fewer than 2,500 people. That is about 0.6 per cent of the total affiliated union membership in New South Wales of 384,000. Thus, the 99.4 per cent of members of affiliated unions in New South Wales who have actively chosen not to join the ALP are still financing the political ambitions of the 0.6 per cent who have.   Also, this connection with the unions and what it means is revealed today in the Herald Sun in a piece by Phillip Hudson. He revealed that earlier this month we saw Labor’s links with the trade unions writ large with the appointment of the failed Labor candidate in the seat of Melbourne, a former ACTU official, to the lucrative position of chief executive of the Australian Government Employees Superannuation Trust. AGEST has over $3.8 billion in assets and over 140,000 members. That is 140,000 people whose retirement funds, their future, is locked up in AGEST. They are predominantly from the Commonwealth, Northern Territory and ACT governments. Many members in this chamber, including me, have funds in AGEST. The board is appointed by the finance minister and the ACTU. Labor needs to demonstrate today that the appointment of Ms Bowtell, the failed candidate for Labor in the seat of Melbourne, was not a consolation prize for her standing in and losing the seat of Melbourne. The minister responsible, Senator Wong, the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, made the too-clever-by-half comment when approached by journalists that she played no part in the appointment, that it was nominated by the board members. She made no other comment. She refused to pursue any other investigation of the appointment. But, of course, AGEST Super was created by the Labor government and the ACTU in 1990. They appoint three directors each and jointly select the chair. The federal minister in charge is the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Penny Wong, who took over from Lindsay Tanner, who stood down as the ALP member for Melbourne and Ms Bowtell was selected to replace him. Ms Bowtell failed to hold the seat for Labor. She is also a former senior ACTU official who missed out on the role of union president.   The 140,000 people with their life savings for their retirement being managed by AGEST need to be given the comfort that Ms Bowtell has the experience to manage such a responsible job. When selling herself recently to the voters in the seat of Melbourne, Ms Bowtell made no reference to any experience in the investment of funds. In fact, she said, ‘My early career was spent representing workers in the education sector.’ She also said: ‘For the past 15 years I worked at the ACTU advocating for ordinary, working Australian people.’ When you go to the website of AGEST, you find one paragraph outlining her professional credentials to oversee a $3.8 billion super fund—a huge sum of money. It says:   Cath has a law degree and has been a superannuation trustee for over ten years, with five years on the board of AGEST … She has been an active member of investment and audit committees and for six years was responsible for superannuation policy at the ACTU.   There is no mention whatsoever of investment experience. I was an independent member of the board of Sinclair Knight Merz, Australia’s biggest consulting engineering group with 6,000 consulting engineers. After five years, I brought a perspective to that board, but I am not an engineer. I was in no way equipped—and it would be laughable to suggest I was in that position—to take over as CEO of that consulting engineering company. In the same way, there is no evidence of investment experience.   This person will be competing against a great deal of experience and expertise in this marketplace. Usually, those running a multibillion dollar investment fund would have at least 20 years of senior investment experience. What hands-on investment experience and what managerial experience has Ms Botwell had? None of this is canvassed on the AGEST website and none of it has been put in the public arena. We have every right to seriously question the appointment, given Labor’s track record of looking after Labor mates. This is a very serious issue and it goes to the heart of this bill. It shows that Labor is not serious about transparency and that Labor is looking to use any piece of legislation to advantage itself or its mates. It is captured again and again in this bill. We see the issue with GetUp, a third-party group which pretends to be non-aligned, yet in the 2007 election where was all of its focus in the last four weeks? In the marginal seats that we were seeking to defend. And what did you see at the last election? The CFMEU giving a significant $1.2 million to GetUp to run ads against the coalition. They are an arms-length party to the Labor Party. They are a wholly owned subsidiary, in my view, of the Labor Party. They are doing their job.   Martin Ferguson interjecting—   Mr ROBB—You are the only one advocating some Liberal Party policies. This bill reeks of partisanship, opportunism and grubby politics. It must be opposed. We will oppose it very strongly. We need to get back to a holistic approach to political donations.   Andrew Robb Wed, 17 Nov 2010 01:57:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1209 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1207/Radio-Interview-with-Marius-Benson-ABC-News-Radio.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1207 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1207&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1207/Radio-Interview-with-Marius-Benson-ABC-News-Radio.aspx Topics: Interest rate rises, banking competition E&OE MARIUS BENSON: Andrew Robb, the Government has condemned the interest rate rises from the banks and the Opposition has condemned the Government and the interest rate rises but it’s two down and two banks to go – that seems inevitable. ANDREW ROBB: Well I think there is some sense of inevitability and it stems largely from the disappearance of competition in the banking sector over the last couple of years. The botched approach by the Government to the introduction of the guarantees over the last 18 months for the banking sector led to the disappearance of 25 years of competition. We are now paying the price for that. MARIUS BENSON: You blame the Government and the lack of competition for these interest rate rises but the former Government wasn’t able to prevent what, four, five interest rises just in the last year of its term. ANDREW ROBB: No, well they were interest rate rises which again grew out of a very strong economy and they were increases in line with the Reserve Bank recommendations. What we’re seeing now and I think what is annoying people is that the big banks are making increases well and above that which is seen to be appropriate by the Reserve Bank. MARIUS BENSON: The Government is pointing to a range of measures it says it’s taking in regard to the banks. One of those is finalising legislation to give shareholders a bigger say in executive pay. Bill Shorten, the Assistant Treasurer, says for Ralph Norris, the head of the Commonwealth Bank to for example take home $16 million a year is way out of line with reasonable expectations. Do you agree with Bill Shorten on that? ANDREW ROBB: I agree. I don’t see how anyone running an institution which is in a privileged position in this community is worth that sort of money. Big banks are going to make significant profits no matter what because they do not face any competition. The big bankers may earn serious money as chief executives if in fact they did face serious competition – they don’t here in Australia any longer. But we’ve got to look at where the problem arose and it arose not because of actions by the big banks, they’re taking advantage of the situation that’s been handed to them by the botched approach to the guarantee. We have to go back to the source of the problem. MARIUS BENSON: Can I interrupt you there and just narrow that question down? If the Government is providing the safety net under the big banks and their executives, should it have the power to provide or establish a ceiling over the pay levels of those executives? ANDREW ROBB: Like I was saying, they can and they can look at these sorts of things… MARIUS BENSON: But should they in your view? ANDREW ROBB: [Inaudible]… you then ask the question about shareholders and the people who own those banks and that is the shareholders – they should have the power to effectively dictate the pay rates or these sort of broad decisions of the board. Now, they should have the power to influence that at the shareholder meetings. But the problem is, let’s not get diverted, the Government want to divert us and the community onto one or two areas which will not solve the underlying problem. The underlying problem of the banks increasing the cost of the mortgage to people willy nilly is the issue to be dealt with. It will only be dealt with when the banks know that some other organisation can undercut them if they get out of whack. And this is the problem. The Government has to seriously look at how to reinstate serious competition. All those organisations that have now been bought up by the big banks that used to provide serious competition, they’ve all gone. They’re all now absorbed into the big banks system. They’ve been bought or they’ve collapsed or they’ve gone back overseas and disappeared from the market. It’s because the Government gave the big banks a very privileged position for twelve months during the global financial crisis. It trashed 25 years of competition build up in this market. It has meant that the banks are now in this very strong position where they can snub their noses at everyone. The Government must start to firstly take responsibility for this mess and secondly do something serious about it. MARIUS BENSON: Andrew Robb, thank you very much. ANDREW ROBB: Thanks Marius. Andrew Robb Thu, 11 Nov 2010 04:55:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1207 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1206/Labor-Fails-MYEFO-Courage-Test.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1206 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1206&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1206/Labor-Fails-MYEFO-Courage-Test.aspx The Gillard Government has failed to take a single tough decision in today’s Mid Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook to get the Budget back into the black as soon as possible. As a result, since the election campaign, net debt in 2011-12 will be $5 billion higher at $94.4 billion next year. And the budget bottom line has deteriorated over the forward estimates with next year’s deficit to be $1.9 billion higher and lower surpluses projected in subsequent years. The Budget balance has deteriorated and debt is higher even though the economy is predicted to be stronger. This raises serious questions about Labor’s promise to bring the budget back to surplus in 2012-13. We have an economy nearing capacity, among the highest interest rates in the developed world and rising inflation, yet this government continues to spend and borrow at recession-like levels. The meager savings and program delays outlined today are not new and were flagged during the election campaign. The government claims it has offset all new spending, including commitments made during the election and after the election. This is not true.  Since the pre-election update spending has exceeded savings by $142 million.  These realities have been put in the too hard basket and deferred until the Budget next year. This is a government that simply doesn’t get it. It talks about the importance of off-setting the cost of new commitments, but ignores all the reckless spending and borrowing that is already in the pipeline. Penny Wong as Finance Minister has failed her first test by ignoring Coalition calls for a mini-budget. Instead of using this an opportunity to rein in spending and borrowing, Labor is simply sitting back and hoping for the best. While the RBA has its foot on the brake the Gillard government’s foot remains planted firmly on the accelerator. It is extraordinary how Mr Swan and Senator Wong have been blaming the high exchange rate for hits to revenue, when everybody, except them evidently, could see that the dollar was on the march. MYEFO is based on an exchange rate 98.5 cents, when the RBA is predicting parity for the next three years. This government has proved incapable of taking the tough decisions. It has missed a golden opportunity to do some heavy lifting to help restore the economic resilience Labor inherited and to ease pressure from families and small businesses.  Labor cannot manage money.  Bringing the Budget back into surplus will take courage, but Labor lacks courage. It continues to spend beyond its means when it should be making the tough decisions. Media contacts: Nigel Blunden on 0407 632 931 (Joe Hockey) or Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 (Andrew Robb) Andrew Robb Tue, 09 Nov 2010 05:07:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1206 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1205/Labor-should-cut-spending-to-protect-home-owners--The-Punch.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1205 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1205&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1205/Labor-should-cut-spending-to-protect-home-owners--The-Punch.aspx This government must have the courage and discipline to cut spending, reduce borrowing and to repay debt. The mid year economic update (MYEFO) expected this week needs to take the form of a mini-budget. Wayne Swan needs to accept that government spending has and is contributing to the upward pressure on interest rates. We have now seen seven rises under his watch. The Treasurer was at direct odds with leading economists such as Saul Eslake, Chris Richardson and RBA board member Warwick McKibbin, when he said: “Anybody who’s claiming the stimulus is somehow related to rate rises is simply talking rubbish.” At the same time Finance Minister Penny Wong says: “what we are delivering for our part is the fastest fiscal consolidation that we have seen since the 1960s.” In reality, this should be easy after you have just conducted the biggest spending and borrowing spree in Australia’s history. The government’s latest monthly financial statement, however, which Senator Wong dropped out late on a Friday afternoon, raises serious doubts about the budget returning to surplus in 2012-13. Senator Wong is on record pledging that the return to surplus is “not negotiable” and ultimately that is the benchmark from which she will be judged. This was before Friday’s confession from Mr Swan that the high exchange rate could punch a hole in tax revenue, including the $10.5 billion he is banking on from the mining tax. Labor’s surplus looks to be phoney, cooked up to get it through the election. In the first three months of this financial year, Labor had racked up a deficit of $25.2 billion and net debt increased from $42.3 billion to $64.6 billion. For the month of September the deficit was a staggering $13.8 billion, the highest on record. CommSec chief economist Craig James estimates that the underlying budget deficit in the year to September was also a record $63.3 billion. Labor’s spending for the first three months of the financial year was $9.6 billion higher than for the same period last year. Despite this, revenue was $1.9 billion lower. But the Gillard government continues to borrow $100 million each and every day to fund its continued spending. Interest repayments alone on Labor debt will peak at $6.5 billion in 2012-13 - enough to build six world class hospitals. In response to one quarter of negative growth back in 2008, the Gillard government is spending a further $6 billion on new school halls. Calls by the Coalition and leading economists for Labor to rein in its spending and make significant cuts have fallen on deaf ears. Instead of accepting some of the responsibility for the continued upward pressure on interest rates, inflation and the record exchange rate, the government is sitting back letting the Reserve Bank do the heavy lifting. While the RBA has the foot on the brake, Labor still has its foot planted firmly on the accelerator. It defies logic and confirms the government’s economic team of Gillard, Swan and Wong is out of its depth. Instead of making cuts to spending it is lazily banking on increased and new taxes as well as dramatic improvements in revenue to bring its ailing budget back to health. But Craig James noted: “The main concern is that revenues are still trending sideways rather than showing signs of repair. Meanwhile, government spending is at record highs and showing no signs of stabilising.” Penny Wong demonstrated the huge learning curve she is on when she claimed that $30 billion in new and increased taxes were in fact “cuts in expenditure”. Therein lies a key philosophical difference between contemporary Labor and the Coalition. Labor’s notion of economic reform is to tax, spend and borrow, while the Coalition champions fairer, lower and simpler taxes and living within our means. The Howard government paid off $96 billion in debt it inherited from Labor and delivered six real and consecutive surpluses. As it stands, we are vulnerable to any double dip that may occur. We were able to weather the GFC because we entered it with no debt and significant reserves. That resilience has been eroded by the Rudd-Gillard government. To re-build the durability and to gain some credibility, Labor must be prepared to bring forward the fiscal consolidation it talks about and make meaningful spending cuts to dud programs like ‘Cash for Clunkers’. MYEFO has to be more than simply an update of the numbers, it must be a document akin to a mini-budget. If this doesn’t materialise, Penny Wong will have failed her first big test as Finance Minister. http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/labor-should-cut-spending-to-protect-home-owners/#comments Andrew Robb Sun, 07 Nov 2010 23:20:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1205 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1204/The-Hon-Andrew-Robb-AO-MP-Doorstop-Interview.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1204 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1204&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1204/The-Hon-Andrew-Robb-AO-MP-Doorstop-Interview.aspx Topics:  Labor’s phoney surplus, need for a mini-budget, need for increased competition in banking. E&OE ANDREW ROBB: We’ve just been witness to the latest humiliation for Wayne Swan. The long-standing, non-negotiable, so-called ‘surplus’ that has been promised now for months and months and particularly before the election, turns out to be a phoney. It’s a phoney. The fact of the matter is that the Government has lost control of its budget. Its revenue is starting to fall away. They knew this would happen. They’re now softening us up for what was always going to happen. The Treasurer of the country needs to start taking some hard decision. Next week’s financial outlook needs to be turned into a mini-budget. They’ve got to start to stop the reckless spending. They’ve got to get the books back in the black. They’ve got to get Australia living within its means. This is a Government that only knows taxing and spending and borrowing. They’re addicted to taxing and spending and borrowing and Australians are paying the price with seven interest rate rises in a row. If we’re going to take pressure off interest rates, take pressure off families, take pressure off small business, the Government has to rein in its reckless spending, live within our means, get the books back in the black and make sure that as a country we are doing the sensible and prudent thing with our finances. They’ve got to stop the $100 million a day borrowing, the reckless spending, take some hard decisions, get some control, get back on the front foot. This is a government which is out of control. JOURNALIST: How would you put the budget in surplus? ANDREW ROBB: Well, firstly there was $50 billion worth of savings that the Coalition identified before the election. The Government should have a good look at those opportunities. The Cash for Clunkers program that they promised is a nonsense – it’s a waste of $600 million. That should be scrapped. The Green Loan program for starters, the Climate Change Institute overseas which we alone are subsidising to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. There’s a whole raft of things including $6 billion of stimulus money that is still to be spent by this Government. At the time that the Reserve Bank is putting the brakes on, the Federal Government is still putting the foot down on the accelerator as far as spending, even though they’re borrowing $100 million a day. Wayne Swan has to take charge. This is a man who seems incapable of taking the hard decisions. It’s a populist government. It is putting Australia in a very vulnerable position if there’s a double dip around the world. They need to get in charge of things, not only on the budget front but on so many other fronts – boat people, the Murray Darling problems. On every major front this Government has lost control. JOURNALIST: Should we put the people that run the banks in charge because they seem to know how to turn a profit? ANDREW ROBB: Well, certainly the Government has caused much of the problem. They stripped so much competition out of the market. That’s giving the four big banks the opportunity to do what they’re doing. If the Government was sensible and knew what it was doing, it would not have stripped all of that competition. 25 years of build up of competition within the financial sector has gone. That is a priority for the Government if we are to see pressure off interest rates, if we are to see pressure off families and off small business. JOURNALIST: There’s a class action started now against the banks, what do you say about that? ANDREW ROBB: Well our problem today, I think to focus on, has got to be what do we do about the endless, reckless spending and the fact that the budget, the Government’s budget, is spinning out of control. The surplus that they promised that was “non-negotiable” is a phoney. They clearly misled the Australian population before the election so that they’d give the appearance of being a responsible, prudent Government. And now it’s all unravelling. The mining tax is falling apart. It was always going to. The budget forecasts are falling apart. They always were going to. They’re now softening us up for the reality of the budget. What they can do, what is in their control, is to stop the reckless spending that’s going on. If they did that it would take pressure off interest rates and it would give less opportunity for the banks to take advantage of the circumstance. JOURNALIST: Isn’t that so-called reckless spending necessary to keep the economy chugging along? ANDREW ROBB: Well, you’ve got the Reserve Bank now, having made seven interest rate increases in a row on the pretext of slowing down the strength of the economy that’s coming out of China, and yet you’ve got the Australian Government with its foot on the accelerator spending, spending, spending. $100 million a day being borrowed is not a good thing for the country. Keeping the country more and more into debt, getting the country more and more into debt, is not going to make this economy resilient in case there’s another downturn. The Government’s responsibility is to keep Australia living within its means. At the moment, they’re spending recklessly, they’re borrowing recklessly, and they’ve lost control of the books. We’ve got to see a Government start to take some responsibility where they can. JOURNALIST: Inaudible ANDREW ROBB: This is a populist Government. They’ve been incapable of taking hard decisions with boat people, with the Murray Darling issue, and now on the spending front, any mini-budget is difficult, but if they want Australia to live within its means, if they want to ultimately take real pressure off interest rate rises, take real pressure off families, take real pressure of small and medium business, then they’ve got to take these hard decisions. You can’t keep throwing money around like they are with ‘Cash for Clunkers’ and green loan programs and pink batts and wasteful spending within school halls and all the rest and expect it not to have consequences. The consequence has been seven interest rate increases in a row. The Government can do something about it, must do something about it and must do something urgently. Instead of swanning around overseas and dropping messages back here to soften people up for their mistakes, the Treasurer should be back here structuring a mini-budget next week, so that we can get this economy back on track. Media Contact: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Fri, 05 Nov 2010 03:08:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1204 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1202/Interview-with-Chris-Uhlmann-ABC-24.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1202 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1202&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1202/Interview-with-Chris-Uhlmann-ABC-24.aspx Topics:  Interest rate rises, Labor’s reckless spending and borrowing, competition in the banking sector. E&OE CHRIS UHLMANN: Andrew Robb isn’t it just a bit simplistic to say that interest rates rise because the Government is spending too much? ANDREW ROBB: Well interest rates rise for all sorts of reasons but one of the key reasons that they having been rising more than they should is because this Government has been recklessly spending, they’re still borrowing $100 million every day, they are out there putting pressure on interest rates through that borrowing and spending and they refuse to do anything about it.  They’ve got the Reserve Bank putting the pressure on, putting the brakes on and they’ve got the foot on the accelerator.  Now they have got to do something in their own area of fiscal spending to try and take some pressure off interest rates.  We needn’t have had this seventh increase in interest rates if the Government had done its job and cut back the reckless spending that it’s now doing. CHRIS UHLMANN: The Government says that it’s going to actually return to surplus faster than anyone has and it’s got a two per cent efficiency dividend which applies across the entire public service and that it is making savings. ANDREW ROBB: Well again, Penny Wong, who has just taken over as Finance Minister and clearly you’ve got the training wheels well and truly still on, she’s saying yesterday that they’d made $82 or $84 billion of cuts, now $35 billion of that for Penny Wong’s benefit, is actually tax increases so the sort of verbal gymnastics that is going on within the Government to try and explain what is a totally unsatisfactory financial situation, is bizarre. For the Finance Minister of the country to call $35 billion worth of tax increases as cuts to their spending, beggars belief. This is a Government whose economic team - Gillard, Swan and Wong have lost control of the economy in many respects. It’s been a huge humiliation what has happened over the last 24 hours with interest rate increases and the Commonwealth Bank coming in on top of it and of course the first three months, they’ve had a $25 billion increase in the deficit, predicting $41 billion for the year, already in the first three months they’ve chalked up 25. CHRIS UHLMANN: Well everyone talks a good game on the banks and Joe Hockey has a nine point plan out.  I notice four of the points are investigations, what in it would bring down, or put pressure on the banks to not lift interest rates out of cycle? ANDREW ROBB: Well the competition, there are several steps there which would increase transparency; there are steps that would ensure no price signalling went on.  These sorts of things would help competition because bear in mind what we’ve seen in the last 18 months is the trashing of 25 years of build up of competition within the banking sector.  St George for instance is a classic.  Wayne Swan authorised the take over of St George by Westpac, now we have missing another major area of competition… CHRIS UHLMANN: But most of the competition was killed off by the Global Financial Crisis because the products they were selling were no longer able to be sold. ANDREW ROBB: Wayne Swan authorised the takeover of St George by Westpac. Now we have missing another major area of competition. CHRIS UHLMANN: Most of the competition was killed off by the Global Finance Crisis, because the products they were selling were no longer bale to be sold. ANDREW ROBB: Most of the competition was because of government policy decisions, which led to a panic and the reduction or people withdrawing money from long-standing trust funds, which closed almost overnight, because deposits were being withdrawn and placed in the four big banks who had the guarantees. We saw that with so many smaller organisations and we saw the lack of protection for the derivatives markets, so RAMs and Aussie Home Loans and all of these other smaller institutions, which were providing important competition, they all went to the wall, no they got bought up, bought up by the big four. So we are now back really in the early ’80s in terms of concentration of ownership within the banking sector, where as we had had 25 years from both sides of politics encouraging a build up of competition, that’s the thing that’s been decimated. CHRIS UHLMANN: Just looking at some of the elements of your nine point plan though, giving the ACCC power to investigate what’s called collusive price signalling essentially they will be monitoring what the bank executives say, now that’s completely fraught isn’t it? That really won’t have much beyond the effect of making bank executives just watch their tongue. ANDREW ROBB: Well, there is no one thing by itself, but the ACCC has said that if you are going to have a situation where you have just got really four big players in the market, rather than potentially dozens, of course we’ve lost most of the foreign banks have now gone back home again because they really had no protection here in this market. So if you’ve got just four big banks they want to put the pressure on them to make sure they are not telling one another what they are going to do, so that they all work in concert and you remove the competition. By itself it will not fix the problem. None of these issues or none of these nine points by themselves will fix the problem, but we certainly need a ‘son of Wallace’ inquiry, which is one of the nine points, because the issue of how we reinstate, how we allow competition to re-emerge, a very difficult one, very hard to unscramble the omelette now, that’s been created by this government’s policies over the last 18 months. CHRIS UHLMANN: Just two quick things, the Greens are proposing fixing the gap between what banks pay for their money and the interest rate they can charge, is that at all a good idea? ANDREW ROBB: No, we’ve been through all this. From the ’70s, when capital started to move in real time around the world, it meant that all of our sectors needed to be market driven, needed to be competitive. We got into that in the banking sector early in the 1980s and it’s been a very constructive roll-out of competition until the last 18 months, when so much of that was trashed by the measures that the Federal government undertook, without looking across the sector. CHRIS UHLMANN: Just finally, how are you getting on with Joe Hockey, there seems to have been some disquiet in the last couple of weeks on the Coalition benches? ANDREW ROBB: Well, Joe and I get on very well I’ve got to say. We worked together hand-in-glove through the campaign, we talk to one another every second day. He and I are good friends and good professional colleagues, so there is certainly no disquiet there between us and hopefully we are both making a solid contribution. Because on the other side, they talk a lot, but they do nothing. And I’d say the alternative, the government’s economic team, the three there are really. They’re lightweights. They’ve had a big humiliation over the last 24 hours and with the loss of control of their spending, it must be a great worry for so many Australians. I think it’s why so many people are unsettled by the current financial situation. Media Contact: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Wed, 03 Nov 2010 05:37:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1202 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1203/Labors-Fast-Rail-Double-Standard-Highlights-Need-for-Consistency.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1203 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1203&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1203/Labors-Fast-Rail-Double-Standard-Highlights-Need-for-Consistency.aspx Labor’s commitment to conduct an “extensive feasibility study to determine the economic benefits and financial viability of a new multi-billion-dollar high speed rail network” exposes the unjustifiable double standards of this government. Shadow Minister for Finance Andrew Robb said it was inexcusable that Minister for Infrastructure, Anthony Albanese, would insist on such a study before committing funds to a multi-billion-dollar high-speed rail project, but not conduct a cost-benefit analysis prior to committing billions to a high-speed broadband project. “This double standard highlights the Gillard government’s ultimate contempt for taxpayers and should be exposed for what it is. Labor’s insistence on proper due diligence for one project, but pigheaded refusal in relation to the NBN is farcical,” Mr Robb said. On one hand Mr Albanese thinks it’s vitally important to “undertake financial and economic modelling” and to examine “likely demand” for high-speed rail before committing a cent of taxpayers’ money, yet on the other he is happy to turn a blind eye, as Labor prepares to spend at least $27 billion on its ill-conceived NBN project. “The NBN Implementation Study that Labor hides behind explicitly states that it did not involve a cost-benefit analysis because the government had already agreed to proceed with this particular policy,” Mr Robb said.  Mr Albanese needs to be reminded of his own hollow words back on 3 October 2008. “The Rudd Labor Government was elected with a mandate to build the nation. We’ve established Infrastructure Australia to give us independent advice to make sure that we have a rigorous cost benefit analysis of any project which is being put forward.” Mr Robb said if Labor is to be taken seriously it must commit to: Conducting cost-benefit analysis on all major infrastructure proposals. Publicly release the results of all cost-benefit analyses undertaken, before committing to proceed. “It seems Labor cynically uses feasibility studies and cost-benefit analysis to justify killing off projects it does not want to proceed with, but does not apply the same rigour to those projects that it deems as politically advantageous,” Mr Robb said.      Media Contact:  Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521   Andrew Robb Tue, 02 Nov 2010 05:57:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1203 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1201/Labor-Racks-Up-252-Billion-Deficit-in-Just-Three-Months.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1201 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1201&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1201/Labor-Racks-Up-252-Billion-Deficit-in-Just-Three-Months.aspx The latest government financial statement reveals a staggering budget deficit of $25.2 billion for the first three months of this financial year, casting enormous doubt over Labor’s promise to return the budget to surplus. Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction Andrew Robb said Labor’s spending continued at record levels and there were no signs that revenue was improving which made urgent the need for substantial fiscal tightening. “Labor must have the courage and discipline to quickly rein in its reckless spending and borrowing. The upcoming MYEFO (Mid Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook) must take the form of a mini-budget, not just a mere update of the numbers,” he said. “The September statement confirms that Labor’s reckless spending and borrowing is continuing unabated. Since July spending is $9.6 billion higher than it was during the same period last year. Despite this revenue was down $1.9 billion,” Mr Robb said. “The government is banking on improvements in revenue to bring the budget back to surplus, yet this statement shows no signs of the level of improvement that will be required and therefore spending must be cut.” “When compared to the final budget outcome of 2009-10, the statement confirms that net debt has jumped from $42.3 billion to $64.6 billion in just three months. What does this say about the budget forecast of $78.5 billion net debt for the full year, when we are almost two thirds the way there in the first quarter?” “The statement reveals that net debt has jumped to $64.6 billion in just three months. What does this say about the budget forecast of $78.5 billion net debt for the full year, when we are almost two thirds the way there in the first three months?” CommSec chief economist Craig James estimates that the underlying budget deficit in the year to September was a record $63.3 billion. “The main concern is that revenues are still trending sideways rather than showing signs of repair. Meanwhile, government spending is at record highs and showing no signs of stabilising,” he said. Mr Robb said this statement produced no evidence whatsoever that Labor was on track to return the budget to surplus in 2012-13. “Finance Minister Penny Wong is under enormous pressure to demonstrate that she has the capacity to quickly rein in Labor’s profligate spending, because as it stands all we have heard is talk and she looks to be out of her depth,” Mr Robb said. Media Contact: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Mon, 01 Nov 2010 04:18:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1201 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1197/Interview-with-Fran-Kelly-on-ABC-Radio-National-27-October-2010.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1197 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1197&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1197/Interview-with-Fran-Kelly-on-ABC-Radio-National-27-October-2010.aspx   Topics: ASX merger, Rejection of economic ‘Hansonism’, Shadow Cabinet, John Howard’s book.  Click here to listen to the interview   E&OE   FRAN KELLY:    Andrew Robb is Shadow Finance Minister and he’s in our breakfast studio in Parliament House in Canberra. Andrew Robb, good morning.   ANDREW ROBB:   Good morning Fran.   FRAN KELLY:   Can we go first to this proposed merger or takeover, I’m not sure of the correct word between the Australian stock exchange and the Singapore exchange. Do you support it?   ANDREW ROBB:   Fran, the fact is the ASX is clearly seeking to act in their shareholders’ interests. I think it is for others, such as the government in particular, but others in the community like ourselves, to assess whether it’s in the national interest and that does need some careful consideration. We need to know more of the facts.   There are issues such as the government’s in-principle support to allow an electronic exchange to operate next year in the market, I think it’s called Chi X and these sorts of issues. What will that do to competition and where does that fit into the scheme of things?   I understand that the electronic exchange which is going global is already a partner with the Singaporean stock exchange. There’s issues such as the government’s part ownership of the Singaporean exchange . All of these issues need to be lined up and we need to think through the national interest. I think to make any precipitous comments would not be helpful to that whole exercise.   FRAN KELLY:   Do you take into account the lack of democracy in Singapore for instance which is one of the things Greens leader Bob Brown is concerned about? I’d like your view on whether democratic values influence, should influence a financial decision like this?   ANDREW ROBB:   I think it is primarily, what are the implications of ceding our control, or potentially ceding control over an institution which is really at the heart of our financial system?   And we need to see whether in any way that is compromised by the proposed takeover and if it is whether it’s significant. I think mainly though the issue of competition and control and the relevance of ambitions, such as our ambition to be a very strong financial hub in the region. What does this proposed deal do in that regard? Does it advance it, does it hinder it?   FRAN KELLY:   The former chairman of the stock exchange Maurice Newman told us this week that the ASX would be consigned to a financial backwater if the merger didn’t go ahead.   ANDREW ROBB:   Well he may well be right and they’re the sorts of things we need to assess and he’s the sort of person we need to sit down and have these sorts of discussions with.   It’s an issue we haven’t had to confront in the past and there are people like Maurice who know exhaustively some of the really critical issues, where the market may go, where the influence over our financial hub and the influence over our general financial market, how it may be influenced by this.   We need to work that through, but primarily Wayne Swan will ultimately make the decision so we certainly will at the appropriate time put our point of view and seek to influence that decision.    FRAN KELLY:   The government and the opposition are continuing to brawl over the term economic Hansonism. The prime minister defined economic Hansonism yesterday as “sniping from the sidelines with simplistic slogans”. Isn’t that what the Coalition has been doing recently with its calls to regulate interest rates and to lower the dollar?   ANDREW ROBB:    Not all Fran, I think in terms of the government’s characterisation of the sorts of issues that myself and Joe Hockey have been discussing, it reminded me in the first instance of that Gough Whitlam quote: “If you stop telling lies about me, I’ll stop telling the truth about you.”   I mean the fact of the matter is it is the pot calling the kettle black. Julia Gillard has failed demonstrably with Kevin Rudd and her Labor colleagues on the reform front and in fact if you look at her record since she came into the parliament in 1998, it is littered, absolutely littered with opposition to reform. Anything of any consequence, taxation, welfare, superannuation, you name it, tax cuts, Julia Gillard opposed them year in, year out and nothing’s happened since.   FRAN KELLY:   This is a circular argument to some extent, reform is in the eye of the beholder, but in these comments of the last few weeks, that you and Joe Hockey the economic spokespeople for the Coalition have been making, I mean there’s a report in The Australian today which says Joe Hockey’s comments on using levers to stop the banks lifting rates outside the RBA was criticised from within shadow cabinet. Julie Bishop reportedly warned Joe Hockey not to quote “trash the Coalition’s economic credentials”.   ANDREW ROBB:       Well the report I can say is just not true. Joe Hockey was not berated. In fact most of the discussion centred on Joe’s report of the speech he was giving later that morning where he laid out a nine point plan to seek to restore some competition into the financial market after this government has been responsible really for trashing a 20 year build up of competition over the last two years, it has gone out the window.   Joe is on the front foot putting very constructive policies forward, was enthusiastically supported and that was the nature of the discussion at shadow cabinet.    FRAN KELLY:   Was there concern about the way these things are put? Julie Bishop again reportedly said you need to be cautious about how you do say things you and Joe Hockey, we shouldn’t forget who we are as a party?   ANDREW ROBB:    Really, the discussion, other than what I’ve just talked about with Joe’s speech that day, which was enthusiastically embraced, there was some discussion about the need to make sure that when we are putting things out there that the backbench is informed so that we don’t get confusion which can be misrepresented by out political opponents.   FRAN KELLY:   Andrew Robb, can I ask you about another issue that is around this week courtesy of John Howard’s auto-biography Lazarus Rising. It’s public knowledge that in late 2007, around the time of that APEC meeting, you went to John Howard and urged him to step aside you that was what should happen, you thought there should be a transition of the leadership to Peter Costello. Are convinced by the arguments that John Howard has put forward in Lazarus Rising about why he couldn’t do that?   ANDREW ROBB:   Well it’s not quite right. I did go and see him and have a one-on-one discussion and said that I thought that it would be in our best interest if Peter Costello took over. He then said to me, “are you asking me to resign”? And I said I wouldn’t do that because that would look like you were running away, but I said I am going to go to your cabinet members and I think if they ask you to step down, that you should.   I was just alerting him to the fact, which I did the next day, and seek to get the cabinet members, because I thought things had changed, I won’t get into all the detail of it, but I think the initiative needed to be taken by an individual or by cabinet, was a very valid one and not for John Howard just to step aside because that would have looked, he would felt, it would have looked very much like he was running away.   FRAN KELLY:   Aren’t there ways of always doing something though, if it was in the best interest of the party, I mean Peter Costello raised the question today, which on the face of it looks like a good one, was how was John Howard going to lead his party to victory when he couldn’t hold his own seat of Bennelong, and at that point in September he was acknowledging that as the polls were showing the would not win Bennelong?   ANDREW ROBB:   There’s been an enormous amount of time spent in the last three years discussing what ifs. In many respects I’d rather leave it to others, especially to John and Peter. I just sit in admiration of the contribution both men made over 12 years to the prosperity of this country, I’d rather consider it that way.   What was, was and we can’t change anything. I think our focus should now be, overwhelmingly, on trying to keep this government to account.   They have put this economy, I think in a situation where the resilience they inherited from Peter Costello and John Howard has been comprehensively undermined and the whole effort of the government from now on and ourselves, in keeping the government accountable, should be to restore the resilience in case there is a double-dip recession, that we make the most of the good fortune from China in this present time, so that if something happens down the track we are in very good shape as an economy.   Media Contact: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Wed, 27 Oct 2010 00:10:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1197 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1199/Gillards-Hansonism-Fig-Leaf-Fails-to-Hide-the-Truth.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1199 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1199&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1199/Gillards-Hansonism-Fig-Leaf-Fails-to-Hide-the-Truth.aspx Julia Gillard’s juvenile attempt to frame the Coalition’s approach to economic reform with her ‘Hansonism’ nonsense is a fig leaf which fails to hide the prime minister’s idea of reform – tax, spend, borrow and snipe. Shadow Minister for Finance Andrew Robb said: “The best retort to Ms Gillard’s barbs is to quote Gough Whitlam: ‘If you stop telling lies about me, I’ll stop telling the truth about you’. “Julia Gillard is a very, very late convert to talking about reform and productivity and considering her record the words ring hollow. “The Prime Minister will be judged, not by her rhetoric, but by her track record and her actions. And quite frankly, the biggest attacks on the post-1983 reform consensus she cites have been the very actions of the Rudd-Gillard Government,” Mr Robb said. “In the last three years we have seen the biggest growth of government in our lives since Whitlam. We were the only country to re-regulate its labour market during a global financial crisis. We are also the only country I know which is re-nationalising its telecommunications sector based on a few back-of-the envelope scribbles. “We have seen this government attack employee share ownership, make a failed attempt to establish a new government bank, ‘Ruddbank’ and seek to undermine private health insurance. On top of that they have squandered the resilience it inherited from the Coalition by turning a massive surplus into a massive debt,” Mr Robb said. “Julia Gillard likes to talk about reform, yet conveniently forgets the ‘gang of four’s’ laughable and timid response to the Henry tax review; cherry picking a big new tax out of 138 recommendations and ignoring the many genuine reforms put forward. “I also remind Ms Gillard of the fact that she opposed every key economic reform put forward by the Howard Government, which helped build that very economic resilience that Labor inherited. “This latest outburst is clearly a naked diversion out of the all too predictable Hawker-Britton play-book, aimed at deflecting attention away from Labor’s continuing collapse in public support, which ironically stems from its lack of a genuine reform agenda,” Mr Robb said. Media Contact: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:24:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1199 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1198/Radio-Interview-with-Marius-Benson-ABC-News-Radio.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1198 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1198&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1198/Radio-Interview-with-Marius-Benson-ABC-News-Radio.aspx Topics: Proposed ASX merger, Gillard’s Hansonite nonsense, bank competition, workplace relations. E&OE MARIUS BENSON: Andrew Robb, I want to ask you about the rhetorical battle between the government and the opposition over the economy, but can I ask you about one financial deal that is on the front pages first, that is the merger, takeover, depending on your view, of the ASX by the Singapore exchange. In fact how do you see it, is it a merger or is it a takeover? ANDREW ROBB: These things are always presented as mergers, but the principal party certainly  would be the Singaporean exchange, if this did come off, if this investment did take place, but the important thing really in all of this is the national interest. And I think there is a fair way to go yet, to see whether this investment or takeover is likely to follow through. MARIUS BENSON: Just from your tone it sounds like you’ve got doubts about whether it is in the national interest. ANDREW ROBB: It’s a very big issue and there are many factors that I’m just simply not aware of and many that no one else would be either really amongst the general public. There is a process with the Foreign Investment Review Board who will lay the facts in front of the government and ultimately it is Wayne Swan who has the responsibility of demonstrating how it is in the national interest if this project, this investment, this takeover, is to take place. MARIUS BENSON: A Financial Review columnist is this morning arguing that only xenophobia is the only barrier standing in the way of this deal with the Singapore exchange. ANDREW ROBB: Well that’s unhelpful, those sorts of comments. The point is really, does this advantage Australia or not advantage Australia? MARIUS BENSON: You’re being excused of xenophobia yourself by the prime minister, she uses the phrase economic Hansonism and the suggestion you want to cut Australia off from global economic forces by controlling interest rates and the dollar. Has the opposition moved away from its traditional advocacy of allowing the market to run free? ANDREW ROBB: Oh look, it’s just rubbish, totally disingenuous. In fact it’s reminded me of the Gough Whitlam retort: ‘If you stop telling lies about me, I’ll stop telling the truth about you.’ In many ways I think it’s a ploy to cover the further collapse, as we have seen this morning, in voter support. The government is extraordinarily four points behind. Usually a new government would get a kick in the polls and in fact the opposite has occurred. And I think it does reflect the fact that Julia Gillard really has failed to develop any authority or direction as leader. And on so many fronts things are just turning to custard. MARIUS BENSON: Do you support Joe Hockey in saying parliament should be doing something about interest rates? ANDREW ROBB: Joe is right in the sense that the plan he put out yesterday, which has very strong support of the ACCC, is to ensure that there is significant competition. The issue that Joe has been raising is that after the last 20 months or more we have seen the biggest collapse in competition in the finance sector. Over the last 20 years there’s been a great strengthening of competition in the finance sector, much of that is gone. RAMS is gone, Aussie Home Loans, they’ve all been bought up by the big banks, Challenger bank is gone, lots of the smaller banks have been absorbed into the bigger banks. All of this mainly because of government measures and support for the four big banks. MARIUS BENSON: Could I just ask you a quick final question on industrial relations, because the government is accusing you of trying to reinstate Work Choices from the Howard era, you have said that unfair dismissal laws and the reinstatement of individual contracts would be looked at. Is that the case or is it the case that all industrial relations laws changes are off the agenda for three years for the opposition? ANDREW ROBB: What we had said at the election, and it’s still true in opposition, we had said that we would not change the government’s legislation if we were the government for three years. But during those three years we would look to see how their changes, how their system was working or not working. So we will look at the strengths and weaknesses of the current system and if we see there is a need for change we will put those changes to the people at the next election. MARIUS BENSON: Andrew Robb, thank you very much. Media Contact: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:23:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1198 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1200/Labor-Must-Accept-Need-to-Rein-in-Spending.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1200 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1200&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1200/Labor-Must-Accept-Need-to-Rein-in-Spending.aspx After slamming Coalition calls for the need for a pre-Christmas mini-budget to rein in reckless spending because of Australia’s high interest rates, high exchange rate and the threat of a double dip recession, it has been revealed today that the upcoming MYEFO (Mid Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook) is starting to morph into one. Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction Andrew Robb said that after hysterically dismissing his calls for a mini-budget just two weeks ago, it appears Treasurer Wayne Swan and Finance Minister Penny Wong are coming around. “Two weeks ago Mr Swan and Senator Wong scoffed at the need for a mini-budget, which would require significant spending and borrowing cuts, as opposed to a standard MYEFO, which is a mere update of economic numbers under existing policy settings. Now we learn today that the midyear review will contain savings in order to pay for Labor’s $2.4 billion in new post-election spending commitments and because of increasing fears about the prospect of a double-dip global recession,” Mr Robb said. “It’s time Mr Swan and Senator Wong swallowed their pride, admit the Coalition and others were right and commit to a substantial fiscal recalibration to rein in the continued reckless spending and borrowing and to pay off their $90 billion debt. “Labor needs to restore the economic resilience it inherited as quickly as possible, to ease some of the pressure off interest rates and inflation and to get the budget back to health. This is essential so that we are well equipped to deal with any future black clouds that we may encounter,” Mr Robb said. “This will require the type of discipline this Labor government has thus far failed to demonstrate, including substantive spending cuts. We see that Penny Wong has left the door open to public service job cuts, despite her predecessor Lindsay Tanner ruling them out. “It is pleasing to see that Labor’s ill-conceived, $400 million ‘cash for clunkers’ scheme is inline for the chop and Senator Wong should confirm that the government got it badly wrong and the program will not proceed. “The Government could also, for example, find $300 million is savings by scrapping its commitment to the Global Carbon and Storage Institute, which Australia is propping up. There are many areas where sensible savings can be found if Labor has the courage,” Mr Robb said. Media Contact: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Mon, 25 Oct 2010 00:29:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1200 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1194/Dollars-Rise-Makes-Mini-Budget-Essential.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1194 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1194&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1194/Dollars-Rise-Makes-Mini-Budget-Essential.aspx THE government must curb spending and interest rates. A PRE-CHRISTMAS mini-budget is necessary to reverse the reform malaise that has gripped the Gillard government. The new government is already asleep at the wheel. It is simply sitting back letting higher and higher interest rates, and a record high exchange rate, do all the heavy lifting in taking the inflationary steam out of the Australian economy. And industry and mortgage holders are paying for it. There is a global currency war going on and Australian manufacturers, farmers, tourism and education operators are highly vulnerable to unfair competition. Major competing countries, including the US, China, Europe, Japan and Brazil, are printing money or intervening in other ways to keep their exchange rates low to boost their exports and trade their way out of recession. As exchange rates are relative, if competitors are artificially devaluing their currency by one means or another, other currencies, such as the Australian dollar, appreciate more than they should. Tellingly, the Gillard government has been silent on the effect and causes of the 12 per cent rise in the Australian dollar against the US dollar in the past six weeks. The Coalition is not suggesting that Australia moves away from, or intervenes in, our market-based exchange rate. But there are policy actions that can help if there is political will. Instead of Wayne Swan trumpeting that our high exchange rate is simply a by-product of a strong resources sector, Australia's Treasurer needs to understand that our dollar has reached its highest level in 27 years not only because of very strong coal and iron ore prices but also in response to the currency war, and in response to Australia's relatively high interest rates, exacerbated by loose fiscal policy. While there are things the government can't influence, there are things the government can do, and now. Swan could significantly reduce some of the cost-price pressures confronting Australian businesses and households. Cutting their reckless spending and $100 million-a-day government borrowings and pushing ahead with critical productivity reforms would take some pressure off interest rates and the exchange rate. Yet this government appears to lack the political courage to act. The director of Access Economics Chris Richardson said this week: "The rough rule of thumb in economic models is that you have to cut by about $13 billion a year to achieve maybe a 1 per cent reduction in interest rates, which might, in turn, make maybe a cent or two difference to the level of the Australian dollar." This confirms that Australia's interest rates, and exchange rate, would be lower, saving households thousands of dollars a year if the government's reckless spending and waste had been reined in during the past 12 months. And chief executive of the Australian Industry Group Heather Ridout told The Australian the government needed to "vigorously assess the quality of its spending and of its spending promises". If we do not act, further increases in interest rates will drive the Australian dollar higher, hollowing out our trade-exposed tourism, manufacturing, farming and education sectors. There is still a lot of stimulus spending in the pipeline. Last year Treasury advised a Senate committee that there was still $31bn in stimulus money to be spent this year (2010-11) and next (2011-12). The decision to spend this stimulus money was taken in last year's budget. It was taken in the expectation that by the end of the recent financial year (three months ago) there would be large-scale unemployment, a negative yearly growth rate and an economy nowhere near capacity. The Rudd-Gillard government clearly underestimated the underlying strength of the economy they had inherited. At the end of the recent financial year, unemployment was 5.1 per cent, not 8.5 per cent, annual economic growth for 2009-10 was 2 per cent not -1 per cent and the economy is near capacity. If the government's huge stimulus spending for 2010-11 and 2011-12 was right, had the parlous economic state forecast by Treasury eventuated, then the dramatically healthier economic position we actually find ourselves in today must surely require a big reassessment. Government spending should be a lot tighter at this stage of the cycle. Capacity constraints are compounded by the stimulus spending, fuelling inflation. This further forces the hand of the Reserve Bank on interest rates, leading to serious cost of living pressures on millions of families and a cost-price squeeze on small and medium-sized businesses. The world is not secure. The future is not clear. That is why the government needs to be financially very prudent. It should do all it can to restore the economic resilience it inherited in 2007. The Treasury Red Book was apposite in noting that the Gillard government has a "reduced appetite for further reform". Labor must stop living off the fat of new taxes and borrowings by stopping its reckless spending, ending the waste, repaying its $90bn debt and urgently introducing productivity improvements. The case for a mini-budget is compelling. Andrew Robb is acting shadow treasurer and opposition spokesman for finance and debt reduction. Andrew Robb Thu, 14 Oct 2010 22:26:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1194 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1193/Labors-Lack-of-Infrastructure-Strategy-Exposed.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1193 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1193&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1193/Labors-Lack-of-Infrastructure-Strategy-Exposed.aspx If imitation is the greatest form of flattery, then the Coalition welcomes Labor’s belated examination of the use of infrastructure bonds and tax breaks to leverage new investment in critical economic infrastructure, Acting Shadow Treasurer Andrew Robb said today. It is reported today by the Australian Financial Review that the government is “examining ways to issue infrastructure bonds” to attract private sector capital as part of a belated bid to help clear an investment backlog of up to $770 billion. As part of a comprehensive productivity agenda, during the Federal election campaign, the Coalition unveiled a significant policy that would see generous tax breaks of 10 per cent offered to investors on interest income generated for bonds issued under eligible projects. The Coalition’s plan would not increase government debt as the bonds would be issued by the private sector –  not the government – which seems to be Labor’s preferred model. The Coalition’s new Infrastructure Partnerships Bonds Scheme was designed to quickly unlock tens-billions-of-dollars in new investment in critical infrastructure. Mr Robb said Labor took no such policy to the election and offered no support to the Coalition’s approach, which it is now looking to mimic. “While it is pleasing that Labor is belatedly examining Coalition policy, what this confirms is that it went to the election with no genuine productivity agenda in place,” he said. “Labor likes to talk a lot about reform and boosting productivity, but it has no strategic plan and is now trying to desperately play catch-up, after wasting more than three years and billions of taxpayer dollars. “Labor has already squandered a golden opportunity to help address our infrastructure backlog, but it is estimated that just 14 per cent of its billions in stimulus spending was directed at economic infrastructure such as rail, roads and ports. “The Gillard government has a lot of hard work and tough decisions ahead of it before it will be in a position to implement real reforms to boost productivity and to address critical economic infrastructure needs,” Mr Robb said. Media Contact: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Wed, 13 Oct 2010 23:54:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1193 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1192/Business-Backs-Coalition-Call-For-Government-Spending-Restraint.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1192 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1192&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1192/Business-Backs-Coalition-Call-For-Government-Spending-Restraint.aspx Business leaders have backed the Coalition’s calls for the Gillard government to conduct a serious review of Commonwealth expenditure, against a backdrop of rising interest rates, and a record exchange rate fuelled by these interest rates, strong coal and iron ore prices and an emerging global currency war. Acting Shadow Treasurer Andrew Robb repeated his call for the need for a pre-Christmas mini-budget saying: “While there are things the government can’t influence, there are things the government can do and now. “With interest rates the highest in the developed world and the Australian dollar at a 27-year high, everything should be done that can shore-up the competitive position of Australian industry. “There is no doubt this government’s continued reckless and wasteful spending and borrowing is contributing to the pressure on interest rates, and our exchange rate, which is harming the competitiveness of our trade exposed manufacturers, farmers as well as tourism and eduction operators,” Mr Robb said. Last year Treasury advised a Senate committee that there was still $31 billion in stimulus money to be spent this year and next. This was the Government’s response to one quarter of negative growth back in 2008. The director of Access Economics, Chris Richardson, said in today’s Sydney Morning Herald: “The rough rule of thumb in economic models is that you have to cut by about $13 billion a year to achieve maybe a 1 per cent reduction in interest rates, which might, in turn, make maybe a cent or two difference to the level of the Australian dollar.” Chief executive of the Australian Industry Group Heather Ridout told The Australian that the government needed to “vigorously assess the quality of its spending and of its spending promises.” Mr Robb said it was puzzling indeed that Mr Swan would compare the pending Mid Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO) to a mini-budget. “To compare a mini-budget, which would require significant spending and borrowing cuts, to MYEFO, a mere update of economic numbers under existing policy settings, makes no sense. “Mr Swan’s attempt to misrepresent the nature of a mini-budget confirms the government’s lack of appetite to rein in its spending – programmed originally for an economy well short of capacity – and to pursue urgent productivity reforms,” Mr Robb said. Media Contact: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Tue, 12 Oct 2010 01:41:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1192 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1191/Wongs-costings-attack-a-smoke-screen-for-Labor-inaction.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1191 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1191&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1191/Wongs-costings-attack-a-smoke-screen-for-Labor-inaction.aspx The Coalition rejects in the strongest possible terms inferences in the Fairfax media today that we deliberately misrepresented the rigorous process surrounding the verification of our election policy costings.  This is a semantic argument about the definition and use of the word audit; a media beat up.   The fact is all our policy costings, including the assumptions behind them, were thoroughly examined by one of Australasia's leading accountancy firms, which confirmed "costed commitments and savings have been accurately prepared in all material aspects".   The Coalition's costings were subjected to an unprecedented level of scrutiny for any opposition.   Notwithstanding the politicisation of the election costings process, we absolutely stand by the veracity of our costings as well as our strategy to dramatically reduce Labor’s debt.   It says it all that the first noises we have heard from Penny Wong as Finance Minister is her attempts to score cheap and belated political points, like the Prime Minister has with Afghanistan.   Ms Wong must focus on the big economic issues facing the Gillard Government:   What reckless spending is being curtailed to take pressure off interest rates and our record exchange rate level and to improve the competitiveness of tens-of-thousands of our trade exposed companies Where are the $2.4 billion in savings coming from to pay for Labor's new post-election spending commitments? When will she come clean about the real level of revenue the mining tax will raise? Why did Labor so recklessly commit to a $43 billion NBN without a cost-benefit analysis or business plan? Andrew Robb Mon, 11 Oct 2010 01:31:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1191 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1190/Swans-cowardly-silence-on-global-currency-war-threat.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1190 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1190&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1190/Swans-cowardly-silence-on-global-currency-war-threat.aspx Wayne Swan’s cowardly silence in Washington on the threat of a growing, global ‘currency war’, is leaving our manufacturers, farmers, tourist operators and other trade exposed industries highly-vulnerable to unfair competition. “Mr Swan is attending meetings of the IMF at a time when major countries, including the US, are printing money, or intervening in other ways to keep their exchange rates low, in order to boost exports and trade their way out of recession,” Acting Shadow Treasurer Andrew Robb said today. “These actions when combined with Australia’s relatively high interest rates and very strong coal and iron ore prices, has seen the Australian dollar go to its highest level in 27 years, when it was first floated.   “Instead of turning a blind eye, Mr Swan has a duty to fully engage with other countries regarding the currency war threat and to advocate strongly for a fairer playing field in Australia’s national interest,” Mr Robb said.   The Gillard Government is simply sitting back letting higher interest rates and a high exchange rate do the work in the absence of any effective reform agenda.   “The threat to Australia of a global currency war is two-fold. Firstly, the printing of money in the US, Japan, Europe and other countries, to hold their currencies low, is harming our competitiveness and in the longer term will put upward pressure on global inflation and interest rates,” Mr Robb said.   “Secondly, the current reliance by the Gillard Government on high interest rates (the highest in the developed world) and a high exchange rate, to put the brakes on growth in Australia, means that millions of mortgage holders and our trade exposed industries are being strongly squeezed, because the Gillard Government has neither the courage nor the capacity to push ahead with necessary productivity reforms.   “This inaction threatens the prospect of returning the budget to surplus and repaying Labor’s debt, due to reduced company profits and potentially reduced government revenue.   “Wayne Swan finds it easier and more comfortable to remain silent in Washington and let our high interest rates and exchange rates do all the heavy lifting, all the while avoiding the difficult reforms necessary to restore the economic resilience this Labor Government inherited.   “The reckless spending and waste must stop, debt repayment must be a priority, vital infrastructure spending must be based on viable business plans and cost-benefit analysis; effective reform of federal/state relations, health and education must take place along with reform of tax and transfer systems and the guarantee of a responsive and flexible workplace,” Mr Robb said. Andrew Robb Sun, 10 Oct 2010 01:26:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1190 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1189/Labors-failure-to-ease-cost-of-living-pressures.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1189 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1189&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1189/Labors-failure-to-ease-cost-of-living-pressures.aspx In March 2008, several months before Lehman Bros collapsed, we saw Australian consumers cut their spending when the government was still increasing interest rates. People had no sense of what was coming, yet, several months before Lehman Bros collapsed, we saw typical Australians cut spending. In fact, the savings rate went from minus four per cent to plus four per cent in those six months. Average working Australians had an instinct: they felt exposed. They had an instinct about the problems that were brewing. A lot of it was contained within the cost-of-living pressures that they were starting to face. If we fast forward to today, 2010, we are starting to see a similar phenomenon. Today, consumers are again showing renewed signs of caution about the economic outlook, preferring to pay down debt rather than ramp up their spending or build new homes. The official figures for the last two months have confirmed a significant drop in consumer sentiment and dwelling starts. Yet, we have just heard the contribution from the member for Maribyrnong, which I think you could best paraphrase as ‘They’ve never had it so good’. There is litany of expenses by this government—spending, spending and spending. The member never mentioned the fact that $100 million a day is being borrowed to pay for all of that spending and that someone has to pay for the $100 million—and that is the taxpayer of Australia. He did not mention the costs that people are incurring. He just mentioned the money that the government is spending, spending and spending. The fact of the matter is that Australians are not convinced that the northern hemisphere countries have weathered the financial crisis—we would not know it in this House from the lack of reference over many months to what is going on in Europe and the United States and whether we need to take some precautions as a consequence. Australians do not trust the pollyanna view that the government has for the next four years—a view that the government has pedalled for months. Australians are feeling exposed. There is an anxiety in the community. A lot of it is borne out of cost-of-living pressures that everyday Australians are facing. This was the issue at the election. People were trying to make a judgment about who would best manage their circumstances, and for the first time since 1940 they actually eliminated the majority of a first-term government. They took that big step. You find in countries everywhere in the world that people’s instinct is to give a government a second chance. It is true in Australia; it is true in most countries around the world. Not since 1940 have we seen what has happened in this country, and it happened because people were concerned about the cost-of-living pressures that they were facing. A family might sense that the future holds some risks. They might have some concerns. They might not be able to articulate them but they can sense them, and they think the government has no plan to deal with these circumstances—that is what they are sensing; that is their fear. What do they do? They stop spending. They pay off their credit card. They pay down their debt. That is what they are doing now. Again, instinctively, people are out there doing that. They are cutting their spending and they are spending wisely. That is happening amongst most households in Australia at the present time, and the official figures are confirming that. It is no different at a country level. This is not rocket science. If you sense that the future holds some risks then you should pay down the country’s debt, you should cut spending, you should spend wisely and you should live within the country’s means. But what are we seeing? A government with a pollyanna view. This is a government so inexperienced in handling money, in running the shop, that they are more obsessed with spin than with substance. They are more obsessed with trying to kid people into what is going on and more obsessed with creating what I think are pseudo budget surpluses in the out years. Just this week Access Economics said that 2012-13 will be five minutes of fiscal sunshine before the budget slumps back to a $1.8 billion deficit in 2013-14. Access expects softer export prices, arguing that mining companies will boost their production levels to meet the spurt in Asian demand. What they are seeing and predicting is a supply response. It is something that we have talked about for months. During my 18 years in agriculture, I saw it again and again: a supply response to higher prices which was never anticipated. People always underestimated the supply response and the speed of that response. If they had bothered to talk to the mining companies, they would know that there are many thousands of new mines around the world awaiting the infrastructure to take those resources into China and India. If we do not at this point in time capture some of that, we will miss much of the opportunity that the budget predicts will occur. But all of that new mining will create a supply response that will reduce the price of resources, which will mean that we will never have a hope of producing the sorts of surpluses the government has predicted. Access Economics warned that if the subsequent drop in commodity prices was much bigger than Treasury was expecting the budget was a ‘house of cards’. Have you heard that before? How often have we heard that? They said it would be a ‘house of cards, an accident waiting to happen’. They also said: The return to surplus trumpeted in the official forecasts is a pure punt that China and India will keep growing faster than the world’s miners will keep digging deeper. How astute is that. We have a situation where Australia faces many vulnerabilities, yet we have a pollyanna government that is blind to what is really going on. The response of so many Australian households—paying down debt, cutting spending and spending wisely—is primarily why Australia got through the global financial crisis in such good shape compared with other industrialised countries. It was our having no debt, massive reserves, four per cent unemployment and a 12-month pipeline of projects that kept us going until the crisis was in fact pretty much over. Combined with the 4¼ per cent response by the Reserve Bank, which is the normal measure you take to increase demand, we had exchange rate flexibility—it dropped to 60 cents in the dollar and then went back up again later on—and, because of the 60 cents in the dollar collapse, we had the highest trade surplus in our history in 2009. And what did the government do? They panicked. Not only did they have an early stimulus, which we supported in 2008, sensibly, for confidence reasons. By 2009, they had committed $42 billion. They panicked. By the time the budget passed through this chamber the crisis was over. And what has that $42 billion done? It has done what my colleague the member for North Sydney said again and again: it has put pressure on interest rates and it has created a problem for small business, where there are 330,000 fewer people employed today in small business than there were before this crisis. How good is that? Australia is built on small business; it is the innovative centre of Australia. Big business has outsourced innovation to small business. We have 330,000 fewer people employed in small business that we had three years ago. This is a failure of this government; it is why people are feeling vulnerable. And this government is not for turning. They have spent and spent to the $42 billion. The targets they chose were political targets—school targets, a school in every electorate. They chose pink batts for homes in every electorate, green loans in every electorate and community infrastructure programs. All of these things have turned to custard. This government has made error after error and misjudgement after misjudgement. They have been concerned primarily with saving their political skin—to ensure that spin beats substance every day of the week. They have produced a $54 billion deficit. This is the sort of reckless spending has put so much pressure on the cost of living for families, and this must stop. (Time expired)   Andrew Robb Wed, 29 Sep 2010 23:22:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1189 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1188/Interview-with-David-Speers-PM-Agenda.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1188 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1188&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1188/Interview-with-David-Speers-PM-Agenda.aspx Topics: Deputy Speaker’s position, Access Economics Report, climate change. DAVID SPEERS   I spoke earlier to the Liberal’s Shadow Finance Minister Andrew Robb about day one of the new Parliament, how things are shaping up and in particular who is going to get this job as Deputy Speaker.   Andrew Robb thank you for joining us, first up, the first day of Parliament the Speaker has been elected but we don’t have a deputy speaker yet, will the coalition be putting forward Bruce Scott?   ANDEW ROBB   Well we really will make a decision once we see how the Government responds in half an hour or so. They’ve sort to play tricks with the Speaker himself and you can see this morning he had been some what offended by the actions of his own side. He had the strong support of the Coalition but they’ve spent weeks looking for somebody else.   DAVID SPEERS   He did say you know one day the true story of the past few weeks might come out. What do you think he was indicating?   ANDREW ROBB   It was a sort of loaded response I think. Well I suppose clearly he feels his family and himself have been put through the wringer by his own side. Yet clearly he has the confidence of the Parliament and certainly the Coalition side.   DAVID SPEERS   But the Coalition only wanted him because you didn’t want to lose one of your own number, it cost Labor one of their number.   ANDEW ROBB   But Labor had 750,000 less votes than the Coalition, won less seats, yet secured Government with the support of the Independents, if they want Government they need to supply the speaker, that’s tradition.   DAVID SPEERS   Do you think they should have also now supplied the Deputy Speaker or will that come from the Coalition?   ANDREW ROBB   Well I think what traditionally happens, should apply, what normally happens the names are invited for Deputy Speaker, both sides put up a candidate and usually cause the Government’s got the numbers, all there but one, they win the deputy speaker role, then there is an assistant deputy speaker if you like who normally then comes from the Coalition or the Opposition side.   DAVID SPEERS   The Coalition signed an agreement with the Government and the Independents, that there would be a Speaker from one party and a Deputy Speaker from the other party.   ANDEW ROBB   Well there was a pairing arrangement that we had signed a document for on the understanding that the proposition had been put to us for the arrangement was Constitutional. Now it’s clearly not constitutional, it raises great doubts. We went into that arrangement, all sorts of Legislation has passed and it’s then quite challengeable.   DAVID SPEERS   So even without a pairing arrangement you could still put up a deputy from the Coalition couldn’t you?   ANDREW ROBB   Well we’re ready to put somebody up potentially but we will see how they respond in the house, they talk about a new paradigm.    DAVID SPEERS   So they put up a Labor candidate, you won’t put someone up?   ANDEW ROBB   We want to keep our actions sort of private until we see how the Government reacts. They talk about a new paradigm; they talk about cooperation, consultation and all the rest. All they have done so far is play tricks. We’ve seen even with the agreement they have struck with the independents, that key elements of that have now been excluded in terms of what will be put before the House tomorrow so…   DAVID SPEERS   We are going to explore a bit of that later on. Let’s turn to some portfolio matters. Access Economics has raised concerns that the Budget could slide back into deficit in 2013-2014 rather than continuing in surplus as Treasury and the Government expect. You share that pessimism from Access?   ANDREW ROBB:          We’ve been saying from day one, that this budget was a house of cards. The assumptions on which year three and four is built, the result of that are clearly heroic and false and are optimistic in the extreme. No one supports the numbers except Treasury and the Government.    In our view all along there would be a major supply response to China, the demand out of China. No matter how well we’re doing in the next two years, there will be a major supply response around the world.    The are thousands of projects coming on stream in Russia, Eastern Europe, South America, Mongolia you name it and in a lot of cases just the infrastructure has been built to get those, all those resources into China. So we will see a big supply response that will put downward pressure on commodities and then the whole budget strategy falls apart.   DAVID SPEERS:    If the problem is that there’s going to be too much supply of mineral resources here and around the world and that’s going to push down prices and affect the profits and the budget bottom line. Is there an argument to try and address that supply issue? Trying to limit supply through, for example a mining tax?    ANDREW ROBB:        No, no. Look we’ve got an opportunity because of the demand from China and we’ve got much better infrastructure, ports and rail and all the rest of it to service that demand in the next couple of years.    We need to make the most out of that opportunity and we need to use that money to pay down the debt. This is the problem, the government is not acknowledging that this economy is vulnerable in the next three or four or five years. The great vulnerability if the commodity prices collapse or even if they come back significantly, we are deeply exposed.    Everything that should be done now, if you thought that you’re going to lose your job in twelve months time you would be seeking to pay off the mortgagee as best you could, get you balance and savings in the right order. Not spend much money. Get yourself prudent financial management of your own concerns, no different with a country and yet we’ve got the government with this reckless spending. Tens of billions of dollars spending from the stimulus program, this is an irresponsible government who don’t know how to manage money and all their trying to do is now tax things. Carbon tax, mining tax, they want to get money by taxing.   DAVID SPEERS:       Just finally on that carbon tax issue, the government of course is now setting up this multi party committee to look at how to put a price on carbon.  Tony Crook, the Nationals MP has today suggested that he might consider joining that Committee as well. Why doesn’t the Coalition at least be apart of the process here to get the outcome it wants?   ANDREW ROBB:          Because membership of the committee requires you to sign up to a belief that a carbon price is the only answer.   DAVID SPEERS:    There’s plenty in Coalition that thinks that’s right.   ANDREW ROBB:          Well that’s not true. Our policy which we took to the election with overwhelming support and bear in mind that it had a sixty six, thirty three vote in the Liberal Party room.   DAVID SPEERS:    That’s what I mean you’ve got thirty three there who believe a price on carbon is a way to go. Why can’t they take part in this committee?   ANDREW ROBB:          We are a party that has got a strong policy position which is actually consistent with a lot of the big industrialised countries around the world and with China and India they are taking direct action. Tell me where in all those big countries which are producing lots of CO2, where there is a price on carbon that’s being established?  None of those countries.    We should not get ahead of the world. Nothing has changed since Copenhagen, nothing has changed since this issue was considered by the Parliament at the start of this year when it was soundly beaten.    This issue needs to be considered in a thoroughly comprehensive manner and not just take up the position of the government. We have put a forward market mechanism, we have put forward a means of delivering the targets, the same targets as the government but not getting too far ahead of the world. Not exporting jobs, not exporting emissions. That’s what will happen if they go head long into a price on carbon.   DAVID SPEERS:    Andrew Robb lots happening today we better let you get back to it. Thank you very much for joining us.   ANDREW ROBB:          My pleasure, thanks David.         Andrew Robb Tue, 28 Sep 2010 09:17:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1188 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1187/Interview-on-Sky-News-Australian-Agenda.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1187 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1187&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1187/Interview-on-Sky-News-Australian-Agenda.aspx Topics: Deputy Speaker’s position, Treasury Blue and Red books, Labor’s tax and spend agenda, tax reform, lifting Australia’s productivity.   PETER VAN ONSELEN:   Shadow Finance Minister, Andrew Robb. Mr Robb, thanks for your company.   ANDREW ROBB:   Good morning Peter. Looks like the gang of four up there to me.   PETER VAN ONSELEN:   Different gang of four but let me go straight to this Deputy Speaker issue with Alex Somlyay. Who’s a bigger rat? Tony Abbott for reneging on the deal with Julia Gillard or Mr Somlyay for considering going back to it?   ANDREW ROBB:   Well neither, look the fact of matter is that once we had the opportunity to look at the legitimacy of the pairing arrangement that had been agreed to, on the advice of Mr Albanese and the Government itself, we discovered that it was in fact in breach of the Constitution and we’re not going to be a party to something that could put in doubt reams of legislation because of something that could be challenged constitutionally.   So, as a consequence we decided not to go ahead with the pairing arrangement. Mr Somlyay has decided that the politics that were starting to surround the invitation for him to be deputy speaker was unacceptable, the way in which the Labor Party had been briefing his interest as the interest of the disaffected Liberal when that’s far from the truth.   PETER VAN ONSELEN:   He was pretty disaffected about not getting the Chief Whip position as far as I understand it.   ANDREW ROBB:   Well, any of us who lose a position are disappointed, but you know Alex has been a long standing, highly regarded, very strong Liberal for many, many, years, has served the Party well and certainly was not going to be used by the Government, by a desperate government, as a pawn in this exercise.   SAMANTHA MAIDEN:   Andrew, under the agreement, the parts of which you still want to stick to, that was reached between the major parties and the independents, it did say that the Deputy Speaker would be drawn from the opposing side. So if as is expected, Labor selects Harry Jenkins, there’ll be a secret ballot on the floor of Parliament on Tuesday, would you still now expect the Deputy Speaker to be drawn from the Coalition? Would you think that would be someone from the Nationals? Would it be someone from the Liberals? Would you like to see Philip Ruddock in that position?   ANDREW ROBB:   Well, we will put somebody up for election, but in the end it’ll be perhaps the numbers that will determine what happens and what the Government can do with its patchwork quilt of coalition that it’s got on its side. That will determine it.   In the past, the government is responsible for putting up the Speaker, the government normally appoints or votes in a Deputy Speaker, and there’s usually a Deputy Speaker voted in on our side to fill in as normal with business of the day.   PAUL KELLY:   But just on that point, Mr Robb, to what extent will the Opposition try and make this a viable parliament? The signs are that the Opposition is out to really make this unworkable and bring down the Government as soon as possible.   ANDREW ROBB:   No, no. I mean that’s the spin from the Labor Party and that is far from the truth. We will be very constructive but we will not be compliant. The problem with the Government is that they find it quite difficult to differentiate between those two concepts, and unless you do what they ask…   PAUL KELLY:   Well can you explain to us how you would be constructive?   ANDREW ROBB: We will be very constructive. We will look at the national interest. Our job as opposition is to keep this Government accountable. We now have a government which is, you know you’re seeing the tail wagging the dog already with the Greens dominating policy debate. We’re seeing a government with no agenda, with no strong leadership, indecisiveness. We must be an opposition which keeps them accountable, keeps the pressure on them to get back to bread and butter issues, and not…   PAUL KELLY:   Well just on that particular point, just on that point, do you think the Parliament will therefore run its full term or not?   ANDREW ROBB:   Ah, well in a sense it’s up to the Government as to, if they do the job and get back onto policy reform. So far, you know, it’s not encouraging. You’ve got a situation where they’ve done nothing but play politics. We’ve hardly seen the Prime Minister – the leadership there has gone missing absolutely. In fact, everything the Prime Minister has touched in the policy sense since she took over from Kevin Rudd has been a disaster.   So, you would, if they keep this up, you would assume that those independents that have supported the Government would start to lose confidence very quickly. But if the Government does act in a way which is in the national interest, if it does get its mind back on bread and butter issues, if it does do what it has been voted to do or what has been agreed with the independents and the Greens, then we will be constructive.   PETER VAN ONSELEN:   Mr Robb, we’ll move onto your policy area of Shadow Finance in a moment, but firstly I just wanted to ask you about the week after the result was announced to the election where it was reported you were sounding out colleagues about an interest in the Deputy Leadership of your party and perhaps the Shadow Treasurership as well. What was going on there and what was the underperformance of both Joe Hockey and Julie Bishop that warranted that sort of thinking?   ANDREW ROBB:   Well, it’s not a question of any underperformance. The fact is Peter that within the parliament I suspect there are 150 people all of whom go to that place aspiring to contribute to the best of their ability.   PETER VAN ONSELEN:   But only one of them on the Coalition side was prepared in the aftermath of that election to genuinely sound out colleagues about that position and that was you.   ANDREW ROBB:   Well, again I’m saying we all aspire to make the most of our talents and abilities and opportunities. After the election, as is the standard practice, we do have a spill of all positions, and it was quite legitimate for me to see if there was interest within my colleagues for my mix of experience and skills at this stage. I decided in the end, after speaking to some, but in particular I decided after Tony Abbott said he would prefer to keep our team stable. Julie and Joe have the confidence of Tony Abbott, they have my confidence for that matter, but it was legitimate for me to see whether my particular mix of expertise and experience was of interest to the colleagues at this point in time.   SAMANTHA MAIDEN:   But Mr Robb, is it the case that it was Joe Hockey’s job you were after as you seem to be suggesting rather than Julie Bishop’s, that you saw that that was a way of requesting your own portfolio and you’re renowned as being a straight shooter and good person to work with, have you gone to see Joe Hockey and said I think I could do your job better?   ANDREW ROBB:   Well the fact is that I wouldn’t have sounded out colleagues without having the confidence that I could do the job of Deputy and potentially the job of Shadow Treasurer if it was, if that was to be. But the fact is that both of those people in my view are doing a very strong job. But that doesn’t preclude other colleagues from seeing whether their particular skills are seen as more relevant at the moment or not. So, I certainly was looking to see whether the Deputy’s position was one that I would gain support.   But I have strong confidence in Julie Bishop. I said to her beforehand I thought she had a very good campaign. I’ve got strong confidence and a great working relationship with Joe and I’m very happy with my responsibilities and I think I demonstrated during the campaign how effectively the three of us actually do work together.   PETER VAN ONSELEN:   One final question on this Andrew Robb, I spoke to a colleague of yours in Shadow Cabinet who told me that you had the numbers if you’d wanted to challenge Julie Bishop, but it was simply that Tony Abbott didn’t want you to. Is that your understanding?   ANDREW ROBB:   Well, I don’t want to get into numbers Peter. The fact of matter is, Tony spoke to me, and said that it was his very strong wish to keep the team as it was, that he thought we worked well together, and we had with him and others we had contributed to taking the Coalition from an impending train wreck in December to winning 750,000 more votes than the Labor Party, and winning more seats than the Labor Party.   And he was determined that we keep the maximum pressure on Labor and on this Labor Green Government. And I said to him, he’d certainly earned the right to make that judgement and I was very comfortable staying as part of the team as I am and supporting Julie and Joe and all the others in their particular roles.   MICHAEL STUTCHBURY:   Mr Robb, the Treasury red and blue books that were released on Friday afternoon, the advice to the incoming Labor Government and what would have been the incoming Coalition government, quite sensationally says that the economy is going to be pushed to full capacity by this mining boom next year which means interest rates and their dollar will be pushed higher.   It also says that the economy is highly vulnerable to the dependence on our very high iron ore and coal export prices and that this is really a threat to our elevated housing prices. And it suggests quite sensationally that budget policy needs to be structurally tighter, which means that we need to move to a budget surplus much quicker than both sides took to the election.   Will you be pushing the Labor Government to tighten budget policy further, to cut spending or even push up taxes to get their deficit under control much quicker? Or will you, will an Abbott government, scaremonger if a Labor government attempts to impose some budget pain?   ANDREW ROBB:   Well quite the contrary Michael. Our whole campaign was based on ending the waste, you know, the poor quality spending, the desperately poor quality spending, the horrendous waste of the Labor Government. It was structured on repaying the debt far more quickly. It was structured on stopping new taxes and stopping the boats. It was a very clear and deliberate strategy and one which we think is still highly relevant. And it has been exposed now by Treasury, the Government’s own principle economic advisers, that what we said for months before the election and what we said all through the campaign holds true. This Government is making Australia highly vulnerable to a double dip recession around the world. The other thing Michael on the…   MICHAEL STUTCHBURY:   But even, Mr Robb, even on the Treasury numbers and pretty much on the Coalition’s own numbers, the Government, Labor, and the Coalition would still get to basically the same budget outcome in the next three or four years. I mean Treasury’s saying that both sides, that is not good enough, and we need to move the budget, to protect the economy really from a volatile world economy, we need to move the budget to surplus much quicker. Do you accept that?   ANDREW ROBB:   That’s not fully correct. One they did say also, what you haven’t mentioned, there are very big risks to our economy from potential developments around the rest of the world and that’s what we’ve been saying for months, you must restore the resilience that the Rudd/Gillard Government inherited from the Howard Government.   Now in terms of the bottom line, what we presented throughout the campaign demonstrated that we would take $30 billion off Labor’s $90 billion net debt within the forward estimates, within the next four years, if we had been elected. Now that would have been a most significant fiscal development and would take a lot of pressure off interest rates. Secondly, we did identify $11 billion more savings than the Government in those forward estimates. And thirdly, there is a desperate need for the Government to stop the reckless spending. We will support initiatives which stop the reckless spending but we will not support new taxes, which as the easy way, more taxes and more borrowing, as the only solution Labor seems to understand as the only alternative. And it is, as you pointed out, it is to start to get structural improvements to the fiscal budget.   PAUL KELLY: Well just on this point about taxes, Mr Robb, the Treasury is arguing very strongly for a parliament of tax reform and tax restructuring, in particular it says we need to focus when it comes to taxation on consumption and resources. Does the Opposition agree with that?   ANDREW ROBB:   We certainly agree with the need for restructuring and I think the major structural change must relate to personal income tax and the level of marginal tax rates that discourage activity in combination with how we treat lower paid workers so that you haven’t got an incentive for people not to work.   The whole issue of getting the under 30s back into the work force in serious numbers and to get the over 50s back into the workforce, the whole participation rate issue is fundamental to the very important productivity reforms in the years ahead.   PAUL KELLY:   But what about taxing consumption and resources?   ANDREW ROBB:   Well, there will be I think if you, firstly you can do a lot of restructuring in the personal tax area that would have an immediate and significant impact. And then secondly, the more we broaden the tax base to include consumption expenditure in some way or other, but it cannot involve increases in taxation. This is the problem, Labor’s, you just saw today with the alcopops, it’s been exposed as a total tax grab…   PAUL KELLY:   But on just on that point, so you are prepared to broaden the tax base to include consumption, to include greater emphasis on consumption? You are prepared to involve yourself in more tax based broadening?   ANDREW ROBB:   We are prepared to look at the total mix of taxation. That’s why we want to see, and there’s no reason it couldn’t have been provided literally nine months ago Paul, we want to see the workings that sit, and the number that sit behind, the Henry Tax Review.   Here, the Government’s had since last December, the biggest study into tax reform for decades and yet none of the information has been made available. When we see the details but certainly we are of the view that there is a desperate need for tax reform. But we’re not going to identify in chapter and verse until we see the scope with the reforms that they have proposed. Many of those reforms we find highly attractive.   SAMANTHA MAIDEN:   Mr Robb, if we just go through a couple of the hits to the Coalition’s proposed policy settings contained in that document. First of all, it does say that either side of politics, getting to the 5 per cent by 2020 target cannot be reached without a carbon price and that direct action is far more expensive than a market based mechanism. Being the Liberal Party, being committed to market based mechanisms, do you accept there that Treasury is not going to be able to get to that target on your current policy settings?   ANDREW ROBB:   Well I’ve seen no analysis by Treasury or any other part of the Government for that matter which in any way demonstrates that direct action won’t get us to 5 per cent by 2020. Two lines in a document do not provide necessarily a convincing rebuttal of the program. We’ve laid out a very comprehensive program since February and it’s about $3 billion to take through to 2020 a reduction, a 5 per cent reduction, in emissions. Now by that stage under the Government’s ETS and the Treasury’s ETS we would have seen probably $50 or $60 billion worth of taxation.   Now it beggars belief that our proposal is dearer than the Governments. And when you bear in mind that a carbon tax that the Prime Minister now has promised, is very much on the table, much contrary to what she said just a few weeks ago. The fact is the Prime Minister’s word can now not be trusted in any sense, the way in which she has totally thrown out all of the promises that she took to the election.   But in that sense if they bring in a carbon tax, we’ve got a two speed economy, we’ve got many parts of the economy not benefiting directly from the mining resource boom, if you impose a carbon tax which doubles the price of electricity, wholesale price of electricity, how that’s going to help the economy recover and be resilient in the face of any further downturn around the world I find a bit mystifying.   So, our view is, let’s not just take the easy way with just tax increases. Let’s look at proper restructuring and reform and productivity increases.   MICHAEL STUTCHBURY:   Mr Robb on that, in the population area, the Treasury says that even with the 175,000 population increase that the Coalition has talked about, we still get to about a 35 million population by 2050, and it calls for reforms to enable our cities to digest this population increase including congestion pricing on our clogged roads and reforms to pricing urban water which would inevitably push up domestic household water prices.   Do you agree with that productivity based Treasury agenda to inject more market pricing into the basic provision of infrastructure including road pricing and water?   ANDREW ROBB:   Well, again, Michael, there will need to be changes across a whole raft of areas, to single out water, to single out congestion taxes, could actually miss some of the other major opportunities…   MICHAEL STUTCHBURY:   Well this is part of a whole raft of proposals, that’s the point, there’s a whole raft of them…   ANDREW ROBB:   Well that’s been our point. In the absence of data it makes it very difficult to just put a wet finger in the air and nominate those sorts of productivity reforms that are going to make up the best mix of reforms…   MICHAEL STUTCHBURY:   But all serious economists agree for example on congestion pricing, on peak hour traffic on our major roads, don’t they?   ANDREW ROBB:   Look, it could be that in the years ahead, in the next four to eight years, there may be, if we looked at the numbers that are available in the Henry Tax Review, all the workings that they did, the hundreds of thousands of dollars of modelling and all the rest, if we had access to that and the rest of the community had access to that, we would see where are the priority areas for productivity improvements. It could be participation rates which may take the pressure off immigration…   MICHAEL STUTCHBURY:   Okay can I just ask you one more question Mr Robb, in the deal with Tony Windsor, Julia Gillard agreed to another $140 million worth of protection for the ethanol industry, largely based to a small number of ethanol producers. As Finance Shadow, will you oppose that increased protection?   ANDREW ROBB:   Well let’s see how they bring it in. But we are very concerned that this Government has got no real reform agenda and it depends on if they were able to identify a raft of productivity reforms it may allow you know it may allow activities in other areas. But on the face of it, this is just pork barrelling with no offsetting measures which are going to enable the country to afford it and we will look at that measure, we’ll put a very strong scrutiny on that measure I can assure you.   PETER VAN ONSELEN:   Alright Mr Robb, we are out of time, thank you very much for joining us on Australian Agenda. We will keep talking about you when you’re not here, I hope you’re not going to take that personally, but we’ll go to an ad break now, we appreciate your time this morning.   ANDREW ROBB:   Thanks Peter. Andrew Robb Sun, 26 Sep 2010 06:03:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1187 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1185/Wayne-Swan-and-Staff-Fingered-in-Campaign-Costings-Leak.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1185 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1185&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1185/Wayne-Swan-and-Staff-Fingered-in-Campaign-Costings-Leak.aspx Wayne Swan and his office have been fingered by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) as the source of the election leak which destroyed confidence in the election costings process. The fingering of Mr Swan and his office vindicates the Coalition’s distrust of the costings process.  The political manipulation of this costings process by the Treasurer has been exposed. The AFP investigation followed the leaking to the Sydney Morning Herald of a confidential Treasury document 11 days before the federal election. The AFP identified the leaked document and has confirmed that the leaking of this material by any Treasury official, or unauthorised member of the Treasurer’s staff, would have constituted a criminal offence. However, the AFP found that “no criminal offence has been committed” because whoever leaked the document was authorised to distribute such material.  The only people authorised to do so is the Treasurer or one or two of his senior staff.  So by exonerating the Treasury, and also asserting that no criminal offence had occurred, the AFP have effectively indicated that the leak either came from the Treasurer or a senior member of his staff who had authorisation to distribute such high level material. Mr Swan, by continually refusing to own up to the grubby role of his office or himself in the politically inspired leak, allowed the reputation of Treasury to be seriously brought into question. It was a cowardly and highly irresponsible action. These underhand and deceptive actions are totally unbefitting of the office of Deputy Prime Minister. Mr Swan must apologise to the Australian community, to Treasury and to the Opposition. Andrew Robb Fri, 17 Sep 2010 01:42:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1185 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1186/Radio-Interview-with-Alexandra-Kirk-The-World-Today.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1186 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1186&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1186/Radio-Interview-with-Alexandra-Kirk-The-World-Today.aspx SHANE MCLEOD: The Federal Opposition claims the Treasurer Wayne Swan and his office have been identified as the source of an election leak by the federal police. The AFP has found no offence was committed when a Treasury analysis of the national broadband network was leaked to a newspaper during the election. The analysis showed the Coalition had miscalculated the savings it would have made by scrapping the NBN. The Opposition subsequently refused to submit its policies for costing until the matter was investigated. The Treasurer's office says the police investigation has revealed the Opposition's claim for what it was - a political stunt by the Liberal Party to hide its incompetence. But the Opposition's finance spokesman Andrew Robb says the reason the AFP didn't identify any Commonwealth offence is because whoever leaked the document was authorised to distribute the material. He's been telling Alexandra Kirk the only people authorised to do so would be the Treasurer or one or two of his senior staff. ANDREW ROBB: Well, it is clear from the police investigation that Wayne Swan and his office were up to their necks in the leaking of this confidential Treasury document. They have deceived the Australian people and they have allowed the reputation of Treasury to be seriously brought into question now for several weeks for no good reason. ALEXANDRA KIRK: But how do you conclude that when the federal police says that it did not identify any Commonwealth offences and that is the beginning and the end of their finding? ANDREW ROBB: Well, the AFP, the federal police found that, as you say, there is no criminal offence committed because whoever leaked the document was authorised to distribute such material. Well, the only people so authorised are the Treasurer or one or two of his senior staff. So by elimination, the fact of the matter is Treasury would have committed a criminal offence if someone from Treasury had leaked it. Junior members of Mr Swan's staff would have committed a criminal offence if they had leaked it. The only way that the AFP could find no criminal offence had been committed was if the Treasurer himself or one or two of this senior people had leaked this document. ALEXANDRA KIRK: But go back a couple of steps. How do you come to that conclusion when the federal police have said nothing about who leaked it, where the document came from? ANDREW ROBB: Well, I've subsequently spoken with the federal police after I received their letter which did say nothing more than no criminal offence really had been committed and when I asked the question have they identified the document they said yes. When I said is Treasury implicated, they said no emphatically. I said if Treasury had released the document or would they have committed a criminal offence? Police said yes but they were 100 per cent confident. When I said well then did the Treasurer's, if the Treasurer's staff leak the document would that be a criminal offence? The police said yes but only if they were the junior people who haven't got the authority to do that. I said well therefore I assume you know who leaked the document? The police said we wouldn't like to go there. There is clearly only three or four people, the Treasurer himself and two or three of his senior staff are the only people in Australia who could have leaked that document which would have involved no criminal offence being committed. That is clearly the implication and the conclusion of the federal police. They know who leaked it. They say there is no criminal offence. It is an open and shut case. The Treasurer of this country has deceived, and in a cowardly fashion played this grubby politics over several weeks to try and impugn the integrity of the Opposition in the whole costings process and in the process was quite happy to hang out to dry the reputation of his own Treasury officials. ALEXANDRA KIRK: Do you believe that this has cost you the election and also subsequently cost you a deal that could have put you in government with the help of the Independents? ANDREW ROBB: There is no doubt that public opinion of our costings process was materially influenced by this piece of deception and dishonesty by the Treasurer. By leaking this document and then not claiming responsibility for it, he has left a cloud over both his own Treasury and our own motives for questioning this process. Our actions have been totally vindicated now by this action which is unbefitting of the office of the deputy prime minister. SHANE MCLEOD: The Opposition's finance spokesman, Andrew Robb, speaking to Alexandra Kirk in Canberra. Andrew Robb Thu, 16 Sep 2010 23:21:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1186 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1184/Gillards-Costings-Amnesia.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1184 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1184&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1184/Gillards-Costings-Amnesia.aspx Julia Gillard today on ABC’s Insiders decided that a shrill attack on the Coalition’s election costings was the best form of defence to cover up the scandal and financial incompetence within her own Government, which is of course lacking in legitimacy. “Ms Gillard attacks the Coalition’s costings, as well as the Australian media, claiming they were the big unreported story of the campaign, yet conveniently ignores the fact that no costings have ever been done on Labor’s $43 billion NBN white elephant,” Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction Andrew Robb said. Ms Gillard also remains mute over the very serious concerns raised during the election campaign and again last week, with Labor’s mining tax, including the lack of modelling and the likelihood of a giant $8 billion shortfall in the projected $10.5 billion revenue, which Labor has already spent. “I also remind Ms Gillard that the big untold story of the campaign is in fact who leaked the flawed memo that was deliberately manufactured within Treasury to imply that Coalition costings were wrong? Did Treasury leak it to the media or was it the Treasurer himself, Wayne Swan, or his office? These are questions still being considered by the Australian Federal Police,” Mr Robb said. The big problem for Treasury and the Gillard Government is that the post-election costings process, which for the first time allowed an Opposition to strongly question Treasury and Finance officials, is that it allowed a light to be shined on the work and assumptions of the Departments. “This opportunity, among other things, exposed that the supposed $900 million black hole in Coalition interest savings, associated with not borrowing $18 billion for the NBN, was based on the use by Treasury of a seriously flawed assumption. Inexplicably, Treasury used a forecasted interest rate of just 4.9 per cent over the next four years,” Mr Robb said. “This implies that interest rates will fall over the next few years despite Treasury simultaneously forecasting a record spike in terms of trade, strong economic growth and a very tight world-wide credit market for years to come, due to the trillions-of-dollars of Government bonds which are dominating the world market for funds. “The finance world can see that this post-election costings process was a ‘stitch-up’, as has been confirmed by media reports in both the News Limited and Fairfax press,” Mr Robb said. Media Contact: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Sun, 12 Sep 2010 23:35:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1184 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1183/Radio-Interview-with-Alexandra-Kirk-ABC-AM.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1183 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1183&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1183/Radio-Interview-with-Alexandra-Kirk-ABC-AM.aspx TONY EASTLEY: The Opposition has leapt on a report in The Australian newspaper this morning that the global resources intelligence firm, Intierra, estimates the Government's proposed mineral resources rent tax will raise just $2.5 billion in the first two years, representing an $8 billion shortfall. Coalition finance spokesman, Andrew Robb, told Alexandra Kirk it's an issue the Independents should seriously consider before deciding which side to back. ANDREW ROBB: The mining tax report this morning confirms what many have been saying for weeks, including the Government's own members of its transition committee, that there's no way the Government will get $10 billion from this mining tax, it's more like $2 billion in the first two years. There's an $8 billion gaping hole in the Government's mining tax and in its budget and this will cause, you know, major problems again with more borrowings, more reckless spending and a Julia Gillard government, if it is returned today will mean more incompetence and more debt for Australians to meet. ALEXANDRA KIRK: The Nationals Senate Leader, Barnaby Joyce, says the momentum's slipping away from the Coalition. Is that your sense as well? ANDREW ROBB: I don't accept that. Any clear eyed assessment by the Independents about the incompetence of the Rudd-Gillard Government will be reaffirmed with today’s report that there is an $8 billion gaping hole in their mining tax revenue. It was a political fix to get through the election, now with the Greens backing a Gillard government would seek to widen the tax net to fill that gaping hole in their budget. ALEXANDRA KIRK: What did the Coalition offer to get the West Australian Nationals Tony Crook on side? ANDREW ROBB: I've not been involved in those discussions, I'm sorry Alex, I can't get into it, I don't know the answer, I haven't been negotiating on that one. ALEXANDRA KIRK: Does getting Tony Crook on side change the equation do you think? ANDREW ROBB: Oh there's no doubt that Tony Crook's commitment to supporting an Abbott led government means that we can provide, we're the only party I think that can provide, stable and competent government. We've got the numbers to support stable government and we've got the ability to reverse the incompetence of the Labor Government and to get some prudent financial management of this economy. TONY EASTLEY: Coalition finance spokesman, Andrew Robb. Andrew Robb Tue, 07 Sep 2010 00:58:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1183 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1182/Radio-Interview-with-Sabra-Lane-ABC-AM.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1182 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1182&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1182/Radio-Interview-with-Sabra-Lane-ABC-AM.aspx TONY EASTLEY: The Opposition is this morning defending its billion dollar offer to fix Hobart Hospital. The Coalition's finance spokesman Andrew Robb is speaking here with Sabra Lane. SABRA LANE: How did the Coalition come up with the figure of a billion dollars to rebuild Hobart Hospital? Was it something that Andrew Wilkie suggested or was it something that you calculated? ANDREW ROBB: No in the first instance it was something that Andrew Wilkie insisted was the level that would be needed to develop a training hospital of world class standards in Tasmania. And we subsequently explored what work had been done and found that there has been multiple studies done by the Tasmanian Department of Health and Human Services. It’s publicly listed and that is the sort of about the order of magnitude that is listed. There are many references in their business case that was done. And it’s a bit ironic that the Prime Minister or the caretaker Prime Minister would be having some opinion on this issue when we have identified a figure which has been established by a business case and by several studies and at the same time, in the same state, the Prime Minister has committed to a $43 billion white elephant which is there is no business case. SABRA LANE: Given what you have just told us then are you disappointed that Mr Wilkie labelled your offer yesterday of irresponsible and over the top? ANDREW ROBB: Well it is a bit ironic that he spent a week and a half trying to desperately convince Tony Abbott that this was not only not reckless but the most responsible thing that he thought could be done in Tasmania but also within Australia. He spent, he went to great lengths to explain why this money would be better spent on a major training hospital for Tasmania, world class and not spent anywhere else in the health system around Australia. So I find it somewhat odd his claim yesterday. It sounds very much like Hawker Britton got to him I think. SABRA LANE: If it is such a good idea why didn't the Coalition announce this during the election campaign and why not offer similar sorts of money for hospitals all over Australia? ANDREW ROBB: Well again we need to you know unlike Labor we are conscious about the bottom line. We have identified $11.5 billion more savings than Labor. We are determined to get the debt down. And we will do these things in a responsible and prudent manner. Now that is not the approach of the alternative government and that’s the context in which we made these decisions. SABRA LANE: Are voters entitled to feel a little cynical at this process? I mean it’s straight out pork barrelling. ANDREW ROBB: Well it’s not, it’s a wise investment. It’s something of significant order. And we have got, the reality is we have got a situation where there are a number of independents who will be critical to who forms the next government. And in our view the country is in such a dangerous state in terms of decisions taken and debt created by the Rudd/Gillard Government that there is an urgency about a change of government. SABRA LANE: Most analysts in the papers this morning are highly critical of the budget black hole identified in your election promises by Treasury. Given that and given that the Hobart billion dollars has backfired on the Coalition have your chances of wooing these country independents taken a hit? ANDREW ROBB: I wouldn't accept that anything has backfired. It’s not unexpected that Andrew Wilkie would become effectively a Labor member. He did stand for the Greens at the last election. Secondly there is no black hole. We met with Treasury for many hours and it is our considered view after those discussions that there were no costing errors. There were disagreements or a difference of opinion. SABRA LANE: Are you worried though that your chances of wooing these country independents has taken a hit? ANDREW ROBB: No I'm not. I would find it almost inconceivable that the country independents would back a Labor/Green coalition with Bob Brown as the effective deputy prime minister. It would destroy Australia, the country Australia to have a Labor/Green coalition running this country. It would be the most left-wing government in Australia's history if they take the reins next week. We would see a carbon tax doubling electricity prices. We would be guaranteed that there would be a much bigger mining tax. There would be major restrictions on the use of land around this country for agricultural and other purposes. We would see a major cut in government funding of independent schools and the funding of private health insurance. So I do find it inconceivable that the country independents would in fact back such a left-wing coalition government in Australia. TONY EASTLEY: The Opposition's finance spokesman Andrew Robb speaking there with Sabra Lane. Andrew Robb Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:20:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1182 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1180/Labors-Spin-Merchants-Sell-Lies.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1180 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1180&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1180/Labors-Spin-Merchants-Sell-Lies.aspx Labor’s spin machine is out of control, peppering the nation’s inboxes with press releases full of loose-truthed weasel words and outright lies. The facts - all Coalition commitments are fully funded. Every single project announced by local candidates and MPs are fully funded and accounted for in our costings. Why would anyone believe Labor proclamations when these are the people who wasted up to $8 billion on school halls, presided over the pink batt fiasco, and are currently borrowing $100 million a day to pay for their pork barrels? We have put on record a 35 per cent reduction in debt by 2013-14. The Coalition’s fully costed and fully funded plans will deliver a Budget surplus of $6.2 billion in 2012-13. All projects announced by candidates are funded from a range of Coalition initiatives, including: The Coalition’s Funding Boost for the Better Regions Programme The Coalition’s Community Health Fund The Coalition’s National Community Crime Prevention Programme The Coalition’s Domestic Tourism Development Grants The Coalition’s Building Tourism Infrastructure Fund The Coalition’s Green Army Initiative The Coalition’s Solar Schools initiative The Coalition’s Additional funding for AusLink/Nation Building Unlike Labor’s record of broken promises, the Coalition will deliver on its commitments. The only thing on the record for Labor is a series of economic failures. We confirmed yesterday how we will stop the waste, repay the debt and stop the new taxes. All Labor confirmed is they’ll do anything to steal an election. Media Contact: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Thu, 19 Aug 2010 06:50:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1180 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1179/Desperate-Last-Minute-Labor-Scare-Campaign-on-PBS.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1179 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1179&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1179/Desperate-Last-Minute-Labor-Scare-Campaign-on-PBS.aspx Labor are desperately lying at the last minute about the effect of the Coalition’s spending management measures upon the PBS. Contrary to Labor’s false claims: There will be no change to the PBS; These measures will not increase the costs of pharmaceuticals to seniors; These measures will not remove or alter current access to drugs on the PBS; The price of drugs to pensioners will remain the same.  There is no change to the co-contribution scheme; and, There will be no change to the arrangements recently agreed between the Government and the industry. The increased income in the Coalition's financial statement brings to account income not recognised by the Government in their forward estimates. Just because Labor asserts something in this campaign, doesn’t make it true.   Only the Coalition has outlined a plan to get back to surplus and to reduce Labor’s massive $90 billion debt by 35 percent by 2013-14.   Labor has no economic plan, other than to spread lies and run a negative smear campaign.                                                                                                          Australians should brace themselves for a lot more of this negative smear right until 6pm on Saturday. Media Contacts: John Wiseman on 0429 983 618 or Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Thu, 19 Aug 2010 06:47:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1179 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1177/Swan-Refuses-to-Rule-Out-Personal-Income-Tax-Increases.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1177 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1177&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1177/Swan-Refuses-to-Rule-Out-Personal-Income-Tax-Increases.aspx This morning during his debate with Joe Hockey on the Sunrise program, Wayne Swan refused to rule out increasing personal income taxes if Labor is re-elected on Saturday. Both Mr Swan and Mr Hockey were asked to answer “yes” or “no” to a direct question by David Koch: KOCH: Wayne Swan, will you guarantee not to put up personal income taxes? SWAN: We’re keeping our commitment and we’ve already delivered three rounds of tax cuts. The only “commitment” Labor has given is not to increase tax as a proportion of GDP – no commitments have been made not to increase personal taxes. It is clear – a vote for Labor is a vote for more debt, more spending, and higher taxes to pay for it all. The fact is, Labor is addicted to higher personal taxes. The only personal tax cuts Labor have delivered are the ones they copied from Peter Costello in the 2007 campaign. Only the Coalition has a plan to end the waste, pay back the debt and stop the new taxes. We will take the high road back to surplus by ending waste and cutting the reckless spending. Labor takes the low road of jacking-up taxes. For the record, Joe Hockey’s answer to David Koch’s question was an unequivocal “yes” – the Coalition will not increase personal income taxes if elected. We are the party of low taxes. Media Contact: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Wed, 18 Aug 2010 03:34:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1177 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1178/Coalition-Attacks-Labors-Debt-and-Delivers-Bigger-Surpluses.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1178 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1178&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1178/Coalition-Attacks-Labors-Debt-and-Delivers-Bigger-Surpluses.aspx The Coalition today announced that it will cut Labor’s massive $90 billion debt by more than a third within four years. Under Labor, net debt is forecast to peak at $89.5 billion in 2012-13. The Coalition will reduce the debt by $30.2 billion by 2013-14, a reduction of 35 per cent. The Coalition has the courage and commitment to draw a line in the sand and stop Labor’s reckless spending and waste. In the process we will deliver more substantial surpluses and pay off debt quicker. Over the Budget forward estimates the Coalition will improve the Budget bottom line by $11.5 billion compared to Labor.  In 2012-13 Labor forecasts a Budget surplus of $3.5 billion, whereas the Coalition will deliver a surplus of $6.2 billion. In 2013-14 the Coalition will deliver a surplus of $7.3 billion compared to Labor’s forecast of just $4.5 billion. As part of this strategy we have today released a comprehensive list of all Coalition election spending initiatives which total $38 billion. These have been off-set by unprecedented savings measures totalling $49 billion, which the Coalition has progressively announced over recent months. All Coalition policy costings and the assumptions behind them have been independently verified by Australasia’s fifth largest accounting firm WHK Horwath. The Coalition has demonstrated that there is a better way than Labor’s tax, spend and borrow approach. The “hard choices” and “unpopular cutbacks” promised by Julia Gillard in her “economic” speech at the National Press Club last month have not materialised. Labor will continue to borrow $100 million a day to continue its reckless spending and has not revealed any credible plan to tackle the debt. The Coalition is prepared to take the tough decisions to end Labor’s reckless spending and borrowing and will deliver quality programs which will guarantee taxpayers get value for money. Media Contacts: Lisa Chikarovski on 0428 407 475 (Hockey) and Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 (Robb) Andrew Robb Tue, 17 Aug 2010 22:50:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1178 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1176/Gillards-Cynical-Spin-Exposed.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1176 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1176&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1176/Gillards-Cynical-Spin-Exposed.aspx Julia Gillard’s cynical spin about her launch speech has today been brutally exposed. The speech wasn’t “off the cuff” as claimed – rather, Ms Gillard relied on carefully scripted notes. Yesterday, prior to the speech, Labor backgrounded to the media that Ms Gillard would speak off the cuff. As part of the charade, after the speech Labor Ministers fell over themselves to tell the media that Ms Gillard had spoken without notes. But both an ABC camera and a Fairfax photographer captured the truth. Prepared speech notes had been quietly placed on the lectern prior to Ms Gillard's entry. This is typical Labor – all spin, no substance. Ms Gillard should apologise for her shameless attempt to deceive the people of Australia. The only way to end the spin and get real action is to vote Liberal on Saturday. Media Contact: Brad Stansfield 0439 017 669 Andrew Robb Tue, 17 Aug 2010 03:33:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1176 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1175/Labor-Campaign-Launch--More-Talk-No-Action-Yes-we-will-No-we-havent.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1175 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1175&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1175/Labor-Campaign-Launch--More-Talk-No-Action-Yes-we-will-No-we-havent.aspx Given today’s Labor launch was just a matter of days before the vote – the latest campaign launch in Australia’s history – people were expecting answers. Instead Ms Gillard regurgitated the hollow vision we’ve heard for three years now – all talk and no answers. By re-launching still undelivered campaign pledges made by Kevin Rudd in 2007, such as trade training centres and school computers, Ms Gillard has highlighted the failures of Labor’s last three years in government. And now, cynically, Julia Gillard thinks she can put these promises back on the stove, reheat them, spice them up with some borrowed rhetoric from Barrack Obama’s presidential campaign from two years ago, stirred through with recycled lines from Kevin07, and offer them up again as part of some new plan for Australia’s future. Ms Gillard didn’t tell us how she would stop the boats. She failed to set an immigration target. She didn’t tell us how she would repay the debt, or explain why she wants to increase electricity prices through the introduction of a new carbon tax. And the mining tax, with a massive revenue shortfall discovered today, was the tax that dare not speak its name. The fact is, a vote for Labor on Saturday is a vote for the faceless men of the NSW Labor machine and a vote for more spin over substance. Only a vote for the Coalition will deliver real action to end the waste, pay back the debt, stop new taxes, help families and stop the boats. Further information: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Mon, 16 Aug 2010 03:30:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1175 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1174/Cash-for-Clunkers-Pink-Batts-on-Wheels-Figures-Dont-Compute.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1174 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1174&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1174/Cash-for-Clunkers-Pink-Batts-on-Wheels-Figures-Dont-Compute.aspx The Cash for Clunkers “Pink Batts on Wheels” scheme has been uncovered as a wasteful and ill-conceived idea that will blow out in costs if it is to achieve its aims. Over the past weeks the Liberal Party has exposed just a few of the financial failures that would underpin the Cash for Clunkers scheme. 1. Labor has underestimated the cost of the scheme, which would more than double in cost to $800m; 2. The Departments and Treasury and Finance said the scheme was under costed; 3. Treasury and Finance have found that no allowance has been made for dealers who will be forced to scrap trade-ins rather than resell them. This could add another $200 million to the scheme; 4. Treasury says that 165,000 of the 200,000 cars will be purchased regardless of the scheme; 5. The subsidy to people who will buy cars regardless would cost at least $330 million on Labor’s shonky figures alone; 6. Only 35,000 vehicles will be directly bought as a result of the scheme Treasury and Finance have concluded; 7. On Labor’s shonky figures that means the scheme will deliver a subsidy of $11,000 per vehicle to get new cars on the road; 8. Industry Minister, Kim Carr, has said the Cash for Clunkers scheme would cost $1 billion. Not one Labor minister has disputed the facts presented by the Liberal Party and Julia Gillard refused to discuss the Cash for Clunkers scheme on radio. Further, Industry Minister Kim Carr, in an opinion piece in The Australian on August 11 2010, did not address, let alone rebut the facts outlined above. This is a wasteful and ill-conceived scheme that is open to rorting and will blow out in cost to at least $1 billion, as indicated by Kim Carr – that is, if it is ever delivered. Once again we are seeing Labor saying and promising anything to scrape back into office. In this case a shonky scheme designed to prove its so-called green credentials. Media Contact: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Fri, 13 Aug 2010 03:29:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1174 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1173/Swan-Confirms-Labor-Wont-Comply-with-Charter-of-Budget-Honesty.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1173 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1173&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1173/Swan-Confirms-Labor-Wont-Comply-with-Charter-of-Budget-Honesty.aspx At his press conference this morning, Wayne Swan has confirmed that Labor won’t comply with the Charter of Budget Honesty, and that policies released after today, including those at Labor’s launch, won’t necessarily be costed by Treasury and Finance. Swan: “...some of those may be, or may not be, costed.” In fact, despite his shrill demands of the Coalition, Mr Swan refused to confirm that all of Labor’s policies released to date will be submitted by the end of today. This is a display of breathtaking hypocrisy and demonstrates that Labor’s hysterical costing bleatings are nothing more than a smokescreen to hide the fact that Labor has no plan to end the waste and repay the debt – other than introducing great big new taxes on everything. In 2007, Labor submitted 85 percent of their policies for costing  within 24 hours of polling day. In addition, Mr Swan cut and ran from his press conference this morning after filibustering just half a dozen questions, to avoid having to answer whether he or his office leaked the alleged Treasury note to the Sydney Morning Herald. Mr Swan cannot avoid answering this question, and must do so today. Media Contact: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Fri, 13 Aug 2010 03:27:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1173 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1172/Swan-Must-Answer-Did-He-Leak-Treasury-Note.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1172 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1172&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1172/Swan-Must-Answer-Did-He-Leak-Treasury-Note.aspx Wayne Swan must today answer whether he or his office leaked an alleged confidential Treasury note to the Sydney Morning Herald. This morning on “AM” Mr Swan dodged a question about whether he was responsible for the leak. The leak of this alleged Treasury modelling during an election campaign is a serious criminal offence with the potential to have a significant impact on the outcome of the election. Mr Swan has refused to instigate an Australian Federal Police inquiry into the leak, despite Labor having fallen over themselves in other cases of leaks – adverse to the Government – to instigate inquiries. Coincidentally, Mr Swan was in Canberra on the day the note was apparently leaked. Mr Swan must answer: did he or his office leak this note? Yes or no. Media: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Fri, 13 Aug 2010 03:25:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1172 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1169/Swan-Walks-Both-Sides-of-the-Street-on-Carbon-Tax.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1169 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1169&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1169/Swan-Walks-Both-Sides-of-the-Street-on-Carbon-Tax.aspx Treasurer Wayne Swan tonight on the 7:30 Report tried to have it both ways on the question of a carbon tax. At such a critical time in the lead up to the election the Treasurer, in one of his most confusing moments, has ruled in - and ruled out - a carbon tax all in the one sentence. Wayne Swan is treating Australians like mugs. Hockey: What was it? Was that yes or no? ... The fundamental question is: are you going to rule out a carbon tax in the next term of government? Yes or no? Swan: We have made our position very clear, we have ruled it out, we have to go back to the community and work out a way in which we can put a cap on carbon pollution, we’re going to do it in a consultative way and we’ll do it in the face of the opposition of the Liberal Party and the Greens again I’m sure. Wayne Swan’s embarrassing failure to respond to a yes or no question succinctly has left the people of Australia confused and concerned. Is Wayne Swan ruling out a carbon tax in the next term of government? Or has Wayne Swan said they’re going to use their Citizens Assembly to bring back a carbon tax? Wayne Swan is walking both sides of the street. It’s too smart by half. Wayne Swan must clarify whether the Labor Party will or won’t introduce a carbon tax. Media Contact: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Thu, 12 Aug 2010 03:03:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1169 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1168/AFP-Investigation-into-Treasury-Leak-Begins.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1168 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1168&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1168/AFP-Investigation-into-Treasury-Leak-Begins.aspx I can confirm that I have spoken directly to the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police in relation to the serious leak of a confidential Treasury document. The Commissioner confirms that the matter was being taken very seriously and that the assessment process had already commenced - a process which would lead to a formal investigation. The Commissioner advised that the investigation would be conducted as a matter of priority. The Coalition remains fully committed to the full disclosure of costings related to all our expenditure and savings programs and to have them verified by an independent authority. In fact, the Coalition has every incentive to make these disclosures because the election will hinge on which party is best placed to clean up the serious economic mess and debt created by the Rudd/Gillard Government waste, mismanagement and reckless spending.  The Coalition guarantees to have its costings independently verified by the Treasury if the source of the leak is identified and rectified; or, by an independent senior accounting firm in the event that the source of the leak is not identified and a cloud remains over the integrity of the costings process. Media Contact: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Thu, 12 Aug 2010 03:01:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1168 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1166/Labors-Costing-Farce-Continues-with-Military-Super.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1166 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1166&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1166/Labors-Costing-Farce-Continues-with-Military-Super.aspx The Coalition stands by its costings and we stand by our commitment to veterans. This is a measure that Labor promised before the 2007 election – and abandoned. Labor’s claim is a distortion and a manipulation of both the Coalition’s commitment and the advice the Government claims it is using. Labor’s press release refers to the Matthews Review which was a review in 2008 of seven Australian Government civilian and military defined benefit superannuation schemes. The conclusions in the published report are for the seven schemes in total and not for each scheme. The advice from the Government Actuary attached to the press release shows that under a change in indexation, additional total expenditure rises from a low level in the early years. This is in accordance with the Coalition estimate of the cost in the forward estimates. The Coalition has also taken into account that over time the cost of the scheme increases. For this reason, we will be making further contributions to the Future Fund. The Future Fund was established by the Coalition when last in government to meet future superannuation liabilities. During Labor’s term in office, contributions to this fund have been limited, while other funds established by the Coalition have been pillaged to pay for Labor’s reckless spending. Unlike Labor, the Coalition can be relied upon to meet its commitment to make these contributions and further build up the Future Fund. Following the leak earlier this week of confidential Treasury advice, the Coalition has had its concerns renewed by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs’ release for political purposes of confidential internal advice prepared in 2008. We’re standing up for veterans. The veteran’s community is politically active, vocal, observant and astute when it comes to these matters. Labor’s attempt to deny veterans the indexation they have demanded for years will not be ignored or forgotten. LinkClick.aspx Media Contact: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Thu, 12 Aug 2010 02:55:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1166 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1165/Coalition-Calls-for-Federal-Police-Probe-into-Costing-Leak.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1165 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1165&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1165/Coalition-Calls-for-Federal-Police-Probe-into-Costing-Leak.aspx The Coalition has today withheld 20 policies which were ready to submit to Treasury for costing, until the Treasurer Wayne Swan identifies the source of the leak reported in a front page splash in the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday. The costings process has been badly compromised by the leaking to the media, 11 days before the Federal election, of confidential Treasury advice about interest payments on the NBN programme, dated 5 July. The Government has already sought to use this leaked information to mount an attack on the Coalition. The Treasurer has himself confirmed to John Stanley on 10 August on 2UE : “that is the costing that has come from the Treasury.” But yesterday Mr Swan walked out of a press conference, refusing to answer questions about it. If the leak has come from Treasury a criminal offence will almost certainly have been committed, yet there is no indication that the AFP has been called in. In the past the Government has not hesitated to call in the AFP for Treasury leaks. Further, the Coalition wants to know why it has taken more than 24 hours for policies submitted by the Coalition under the Charter of Budget Honesty to be posted on the Treasury web site. On 9 August the Coalition lodged with the Prime Minister’s own office 18 policies for costing, but apparently they didn’t reach the relevant department for another 24 hours. Earlier in the campaign, the lodgement of Coalition policies was being acknowledged within an hour. This is a matter of great seriousness, given the paramount need of Treasury to act with absolute impartiality. The Coalition remains strongly committed to releasing to the public well ahead of the election savings and expenditure policies – fully costed, fully funded and independently verified. Media Contact: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Wed, 11 Aug 2010 04:12:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1165 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1164/Swan-Claims-NBN-is-Magic-Bullet-for-Labors-Congestion-Crisis.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1164 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1164&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1164/Swan-Claims-NBN-is-Magic-Bullet-for-Labors-Congestion-Crisis.aspx Treasurer Wayne Swan’s desperation is reaching fever pitch, as he claims Labor’s $43 Billion NBN will fix traffic congestion in Sydney. Wayne Swan was quizzed by John Stanley and Sandy Aloisi about the need for infrastructure upgrades – which successive State Labor Governments have neglected – and whether there would be money for them in the Swan’s bottomless budget. STANLEY: But doesn’t that mean that for a few years there’ll be no prospect, the money isn’t there to do any of those things? SWAN: Well, it doesn’t necessarily mean that, because if we can get our economy growing, we have the capacity to invest in infrastructure as we go forward. We have a big infrastructure agenda, that’s what the NBN is. It is absolutely fundamental to increasing the efficiency of business, particularly... STANLEY: But you know in Sydney people want trains and roads? SWAN: Yeah, well of course they do, but they also [want] fast broadband, because in many, many areas they’d like to work from home. That’s all a very important part of the equation; and I know that when you get to some suburbs in Sydney, which are relatively close to the city, they don’t necessarily have the high-speed broadband that they require. Don’t underestimate the importance of that. I’m... That doesn’t demean the importance of what you’re raising, but if you’re talking about a fundamental reform for the whole of our economy, nothing could be more important than the NBN, which the Coalition want to rip up. Wayne Swan is delusional if he thinks the NBN will ease Sydney’s traffic and public transport woes. Only a Coalition Government will end the waste and reckless spending on white elephant projects like the NBN. The Coalition is standing up for real action on infrastructure investment. Media Contact: Cameron Hill, 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Wed, 11 Aug 2010 04:02:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1164 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1163/Labors-2266-Billion-of-Fudged-Funding-Swan-Must-Explain-Where-the-Money-is-Coming-From.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1163 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1163&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1163/Labors-2266-Billion-of-Fudged-Funding-Swan-Must-Explain-Where-the-Money-is-Coming-From.aspx Analysis of Labor’s policy costings has revealed that 70 Labor policies worth a staggering $2.266 billion have no properly identified funding source. The excuses range from being funded from: “The forward estimates” – without nominating a source or an item in the existing budget papers; “The Gillard Government’s commitment to return the budget to surplus...” – without providing any fiscal evidence it is fully funded; No source at all – Labor haven’t even bothered to put on their costings charade in some instances. Wayne Swan has a massive $2.266 billion worth of questions to answer. Mr Swan must explain where the money is coming from. His efforts to date are laughable. Mr Swan has to explain how he will pay for Labor’s $668 million teenager family tax allowance promise? How will Mr Swan pay for Labor’s$222 million promise to put more chaplains in schools? Where will Mr Swan find the $100 million to pay for Labor’s Deliver for Seniors package? Mr Swan needs to answer these questions, because right now, his fudged explanations are not good enough. Media Contact: Cameron Hill 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Wed, 11 Aug 2010 03:32:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1163 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1170/Swan-Claims-NBN-is-Magic-Bullet-for-Labors-Congestion-Crisis.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1170 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1170&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1170/Swan-Claims-NBN-is-Magic-Bullet-for-Labors-Congestion-Crisis.aspx Treasurer Wayne Swan’s desperation is reaching fever pitch, as he claims Labor’s $43 Billion NBN will fix traffic congestion in Sydney. Wayne Swan was quizzed by John Stanley and Sandy Aloisi about the need for infrastructure upgrades – which successive State Labor Governments have neglected – and whether there would be money for them in the Swan’s bottomless budget. STANLEY: But doesn’t that mean that for a few years there’ll be no prospect, the money isn’t there to do any of those things? SWAN: Well, it doesn’t necessarily mean that, because if we can get our economy growing, we have the capacity to invest in infrastructure as we go forward. We have a big infrastructure agenda, that’s what the NBN is. It is absolutely fundamental to increasing the efficiency of business, particularly... STANLEY: But you know in Sydney people want trains and roads? SWAN: Yeah, well of course they do, but they also [want] fast broadband, because in many, many areas they’d like to work from home. That’s all a very important part of the equation; and I know that when you get to some suburbs in Sydney, which are relatively close to the city, they don’t necessarily have the high-speed broadband that they require. Don’t underestimate the importance of that. I’m... That doesn’t demean the importance of what you’re raising, but if you’re talking about a fundamental reform for the whole of our economy, nothing could be more important than the NBN, which the Coalition want to rip up. Wayne Swan is delusional if he thinks the NBN will ease Sydney’s traffic and public transport woes. Only a Coalition Government will end the waste and reckless spending on white elephant projects like the NBN. The Coalition is standing up for real action on infrastructure investment. Media Contact: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Wed, 11 Aug 2010 03:06:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1170 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1167/Swan-Has-the-Form-to-Increase-GST.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1167 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1167&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1167/Swan-Has-the-Form-to-Increase-GST.aspx In making false accusations regarding GST increases today, Wayne Swan is again trying to muddy the waters to deflect attention away from his own appalling track record on increasing taxes. The Coalition absolutely and categorically rules out any increase whatsoever in the GST By suggesting otherwise, Wayne Swan has again demonstrated his increasing desperation. Labor is truly the party of increased taxes as confirmed by its great big mining tax, plans to introduce a carbon tax and tax slugs on cigarettes, alcohol, tobacco, passports and the list goes on. Wayne Swan is always on the lookout for new ways of taxing Australians in order to help fund Labor’s out-of-control spending, which has produced a $57 billion deficit and a $90 billion debt. These are numbers that Wayne Swan refuses to discuss because they represent his appalling track record. If anyone is likely to increase the GST it is the Gillard government. Media Contact: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Wed, 11 Aug 2010 02:59:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1167 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1162/Labors-34-Billion-Budget-Black-Hole.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1162 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1162&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1162/Labors-34-Billion-Budget-Black-Hole.aspx As the election gets closer, Labor will get increasingly desperate to spend money as part of a sand-bagging exercise to try to save Labor Members of Parliament in marginal seats. This means there will be more reckless spending from Labor between now and polling day. Late yesterday evening Labor released an update of the net Budget impact of its election policies. According to this document Labor policy commitments to date total $2,915 million. The attached list of promises, according to Labor’s own figures and compiled from the Labor website, shows that the true cost of Labor’s election promises is $5,827.7 million. Labor’s latest Update claims that they have identified savings worth $2,456 million. This means Labor’s spending promises exceed their savings by $3,371.7 million – a $3.4 billion budget black hole. Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan must say where this money is coming from. On these figures it is clear that Labor has no hope of delivering a Budget surplus in 2013 as repeatedly promised - unless they massively increase their tax take. A vote for Labor is therefore a vote for more taxes to fill their costings black hole. Attached – list of Labor spending commitments (12 pages). LinkClick.aspx Labor spending commitments as at 6pm Monday, 9 August 2010.  (All costings are those identified by Labor) (? means no costing identified by Labor) PROMISE SOURCE COST $M Boost to Housing in Regional Cities - Sunday, 18 July 2010 ALP press release - Gillard, Plibersek, Burke 200 Lifeline for Surf Central - Sunday, 18 July 2010 ALP press release - Albanese 15 More GP Services for Hume - Monday, 19 July 2010 ALP press release - Roxon 7 Labor to deliver more hospital beds for Townsville - Monday, 19 July 2010 ALP press release - Gillard, Mooney 9 Rural Health Minister holds health forums in Casino and Kyogle and announces more funding for health infrastructure - Monday, 19 July 2010 ALP press release - Snowden 0.087 Cutting red tape for doctors a further part of health reform - Monday, 19 July 2010 ALP press release - Roxon ? Labor delivers more health infrastructure and a stronger health workforce for Grafton - Monday, 19 July 2010 ALP press release - Snowden 0.636 Stormwater project secures water for Boothby residents  - Monday, 19 July 2010 ALP press release - Digance, Wong 3.7 Volunteer grants to support local community groups - Tuesday, 20 July 2010 ALP press release - Macklin, Durack 0.049 Big Day Without shows there's more to life - Tuesday, 20 July 2010 ALP press release - O'Connor, Hale 0.15 Labor delivering more hospital beds and infrastructure in Northern Rivers - Tuesday, 20 July 2010 ALP press release - Saffin, Snowden 0.425 More Health Investments for Liverpool - Tuesday, 20 July 2010 ALP press release - Roxon, Thomas 15.2 National Trade Cadetships - Tuesday, 20 July 2010 ALP press release - Gillard, Crean 3.1 $183,000 in secure schools funding for Doonside Technical High School - Tuesday, 20 July 2010 ALP press release - McClelland, Husic 0.183 Funding for Central Coast Youth Skills and Employment Centre - Tuesday, 20 July 2010 ALP press release - Albanese, Thompson 2.7 Shelly & Soldiers Beaches Surf Life Saving Club Funds Confirmed - Tuesday, 20 July 2010 ALP press release - Albanese, Thompson 5 Stimulus supports local jobs and delivers new housing in Gladstone - Tuesday, 20 July 2010 ALP press release - Plibersek, Trevor ? More GP Services for Blacktown - Tuesday, 20 July 2010 ALP press release - Roxon, Rowland 15 Launch of National Scheme to reduce mercury-containing waste (FluoroCycle) - Wednesday, 21 July 2010 ALP press release - Garrett 0.6 Work experience for National Trade Cadets - Wednesday, 21 July 2010 ALP press release - Gillard, Clare 25 More Beds for Westmead - Wednesday, 21 July 2010 ALP press release - Roxon, Owens 13.9 Labor Delivering Funding To Improve Health On King Island - Wednesday, 21 July 2010 ALP press release - Snowdon, Sidebottom 0.117 Helping residents secure their water supplies - Wednesday, 21 July 2010 ALP press release - Wong, Collins, Jackson 9.24 More than $43 million to protect the Great Barrier Reef - Thursday, 22 July 2010 ALP press release - Garrett, Burke 43.9 Funding for Bombala Pool Redevelopment - Thursday, 22 July 2010 ALP press release - Albanese, Kelly 0.46 Free Broadband Internet for Seniors in McEwen - Thursday, 22 July 2010 ALP press release - Macklin, Mitchell 15 Bega Bypass gets the green light - Thursday, 22 July 2010 ALP press release - Albanese, Kelly 68 Community and sports facilities get a boost in Corangamite - Thursday, 22 July 2010 ALP press release - Albanese, Cheeseman 2 Helping victims of domestic violence in Stirling - Thursday, 22 July 2010 ALP press release - O'Connor, Durack 0.135 Labor investing in health services for Northern Tasmania - Thursday, 22 July 2010 ALP press release - Snowdon, Lyons 0.725 Government focuses on jobs in Western Sydney - Thursday, 22 July 2010 ALP press release - Arbib, Bradbury 6 Federal Labor commits $450,000 to reduce crime in Hasluck - Thursday, 22 July 2010 ALP press release - O'Connor, Jackson 0.45 Investing in Ballarat family pathways network - Thursday, 22 July 2010 ALP press release - McClelland, King 0.055 Investing in legal services in Fremantle - Thursday, 22 July 2010 ALP press release - O'Connor, Parke 0.13 Project for young offenders in Ballarat - Thursday, 22 July 2010 ALP press release - McClelland, King 0.136 Better home security for Stirling Seniors - Thursday, 22 July 2010 ALP press release - O'Connor, Durack 0.081 $3m MRI for Campbelltown - Thursday, 22 July 2010 ABC Media story 3 Reward for Early Action - Friday, 23 July 2010 ALP press releases - Gillard, Wong 0 Tough emissions standards for new coal-fired power stations - Friday, 23 July 2010 ALP press releases - Gillard, Wong, Ferguson 0 Connecting Renewable Energy to Australian homes - Friday, 23 July 2010 ALP press releases - Gillard, Wong, Ferguson 200 Building consensus in the community - Friday, 23 July 2010 ALP press releases - Gillard, Wong 9 Labor Delivering more Health Infrastructure for Ryde - Friday, 23 July 2010 ALP press release - Elliott, McKew 0.133 Better health services for Jindabyne - Friday, 23 July 2010 ALP press release - Roxon, Kelly 5 Greater choice in Aged Care - Friday, 23 July 2010 ALP press release - Elliott ? Labor delivers new shelter to support drug and alcohol relief in Tennant Creek - Friday, 23 July 2010 ALP press release - Snowdon 2.3 Gillard Labor Government invests $46 million to encourage visitors to stay longer and spend more - Friday, 23 July 2010 ALP press release - Ferguson 46 Funding for Birubi Point Surf Life Saving Club - Friday, 23 July 2010 ALP press release - Albanese, Arneman 2.2 New emission standards for cars - Saturday, 24 July 2010 ALP press release - Albanese, Gillard, Wong 0 Cleaner car rebate to scrap inefficient cars - Saturday, 24 July 2010 ALP press release - Albanese, Gillard 394 Including people with disability in community life - Saturday, 24 July 2010 ALP press release - Shorten, Macklin 11 Turnour delivers AFL to Cairns - Saturday, 24 July 2010 ALP press release - Swan, Turnour 3 New accommodation in Cairns to support young indigenous men from remote communities - Saturday, 24 July 2010 ALP press release - Macklin, Turnour 4.5 Ten new headspace youth mental health facilities - Saturday, 24 July 2010 ALP press release - Roxon ? New headspace youth mental health service for Collingwood - Saturday, 24 July 2010 ALP press release - Roxon ? Protecting workers' entitlements package - Sunday, 25 July 2010 ALP press release - Bowen, Clare, Gillard, Sherry, Crean 60.8 Tax breaks for Green Buildings - Sunday, 25 July 2010 ALP press release - Gillard, Swan, Wong 180 Government and AFL support indigenous kids in Western Sydney - Sunday, 25 July 2010 ALP press release - Macklin, Crean, Arbib ? Gillard Labor making the Tasman Highway Safer - Sunday, 25 July 2010 ALP press release - Albanese, Collins 2 Funding for Hobart's domain tennis centre - Sunday, 25 July 2010 ALP press release - Albanese, Jackson 1.2 Feasibility study into building new sporting fields in Wallsend - Sunday, 25 July 2010 ALP press release - Combet, Ellis 0.14 Tax breaks for hotels under Green Building Initiative - Sunday, 25 July 2010 ALP press release - Ferguson 180 More doctors and nurses for emergency departments - Monday, 26 July 2010 ALP press release - Gillard, Roxon 96 Funding for Camden Tigers Soccer Club ALP press release - Albanese, Bleasdale 1.2 Investing in Launceston flood levee infrastructure  - Monday, 26 July 2010 ALP press release - Gillard, Lyons, McClelland 11.5 Volunteer grants to support local community groups - Monday, 26 July 2010 ALP press release - Macklin, Trevor 0.408 Funding for the Nunawading Library Redevelopment - Monday, 26 July 2010 ALP press release - Macklin, Trevor 1.6 Funding for Memorial Oval Redevelopment - Monday, 26 July 2010 ALP press release - Albanese, Melham, Clare 2.7 Moreton Bay Rail Link to become a reality - Tuesday, 27 July 2010 ALP press release - Gillard, McNamara, Sullivan, D'Ath 742 Life saving equipment for Royal North Shore Hospital - Tuesday, 27 July 2010 ALP press release - Webb, Butler, McKew 0.4 Gillard Labor Government helps broker jobs for chefs and cooks - Tuesday, 27 July 2010 ALP press release - Arbib 6 Helping Perth families use water wisely - Tuesday, 27 July 2010 ALP press release - Wong 2.4 Subiaco water savings project benefits Perth residents - Tuesday, 27 July 2010 ALP press release - Wong 2.46 Volunteer grants to support local community groups in Dawson - Tuesday, 27 July 2010 ALP press release - Macklin, Brunker 0.137 Labor commits $200,000 to make Ringwood Station safer - Tuesday, 27 July 2010 ALP press release - O'Connor, Symon 0.2 Better health services for the Gold Coast - Tuesday, 27 July 2010 ALP press release - Roxon 7 New national surfing centre to make waves on the North Coast - Tuesday, 27 July 2010 ALP press release - Elliott, Ellis 2 Labor commits to make Mitcham safer - Tuesday, 27 July 2010 ALP press release - O'Connor, Symon 0.1 Taking action to tackle suicide  - Tuesday, 27 July 2010 ALP press release - Gillard, Roxon 276.9 Improved protection for Queensland wetlands - Tuesday, 27 July 2010 ALP press release - Garrett, Sullivan 2 Expanding the stormwater harvesting program - Wednesday, 28 July 2010 ALP press release - Gillard, Wong 100 Planning for upgrade of scone level crossing - Wednesday, 28 July 2010 ALP press release - Albanese, Fitzgibbon 2 Damian Hale secures Dragons for NT - Wednesday, 28 July 2010 ALP press release - Albanese, Hale 0.037 Hale the BMX bandit - funding for World Championship track - Wednesday, 28 July 2010 ALP press release - Albanese, Hale 1.5 Mt Barker to get a GP Super Clinic - Wednesday, 28 July 2010 ALP press release - Roxon 7 100 sub acute beds announced for South Australia - Wednesday, 28 July 2010 ALP press release - Roxon, Digance 59.5 Protecting Caboolture from major flooding - Wednesday, 28 July 2010 ALP press release - O'Connor, Sullivan 0.36 Gillard Labor Government invests in legal and family services in Melbourne - Wednesday, 28 July 2010 ALP press release - McClelland, Bowtell 2 Sharpening our approach to Weapons Controls - Thursday, 29 July 2010 ALP press release - O'Connor ? National disability strategy - Thursday, 29 July 2010 ALP press release - Gillard, Macklin, Shorten 0 Children with a disability given a better start - Thursday, 29 July 2010 ALP press release - Gillard, Macklin, Shorten 122 More supported accommodation for people with disability - Thursday, 29 July 2010 ALP press release - Gillard, Macklin, Shorten 60 Federal Labor to redevelop Reservoir Library - Thursday, 29 July 2010 ALP press release - Albanese, Ferguson 3 Projects to increase disability employment - Thursday, 29 July 2010 ALP press release - Arbib 1 More women on Australian Boards - Thursday, 29 July 2010 ALP press release - Plibersek 0.2 Gillard Government supports vital water safety program - Thursday, 29 July 2010 ALP press release - Ellis, McNamara 4.2 Funding for Ryde Riverwalk - Thursday, 29 July 2010 ALP press release - Albanese, McKew 1.1 GP Superclinic for Melbourne's West - Thursday, 29 July 2010 ALP press release - Shorten, Macklin, O'Connor, Gillard 15 Safer seniors in Bonner - Thursday, 29 July 2010 ALP press release - O'connor, Rea 0.085 Gillard Government to upgrade famous music festival site - Thursday, 29 July 2010 ALP press release - Ellis, Sullivan 3 Hawkesbury region to benefit from new project to assist people who are homeless - Thursday, 29 July 2010 ALP press release - Plibersek, Templeman 1.9 Penrith region to benefit from project to assist the homeless - Thursday, 29 July 2010 ALP press release - Plibersek, Bradbury 1.9 Labor commits to making Beenleigh safer - Thursday, 29 July 2010 ALP press release - O'Connor, Raguse 0.4 Gillard Government to fund Wandong Black Saturday Memorial Stadium - Thursday, 29 July 2010 Alp press release - Albanese, Mitchell, McClelland 2.25 A cleaner and greener future for manufacturing - Thursday, 29 July 2010 ALP press release - Carr 4 Grants for Hindmarsh Volunteer Community Groups - Thursday, 29 July 2010 ALP press release - Macklin, Georganas 0.061 Funding for Drummoyne Oval - Thursday, 29 July 2010 ALP press release - Albanese, Murphy 1.75 New control tower to enhance safety at Adelaide Airport - Friday, 30 July 2010 ALP press release - Albanese, Elliot, Georganas 16.9 Gateway WA - Perth Airport and Freight Roads - Friday, 30 July 2010 ALP press release - Albanese, Gillard 480 Safer seniors in Ipswich - Friday, 30 July 2010 ALP press release - O'Connor, Neumann 0.124 Labor delivers a team of health workers to tackle smoking and promote healthy lifestyles for Gladstone - Friday, 30 July 2010 ALP press release - Snowdon, Trevor 0.5 New Cockburn emergency services headquarters - Friday, 30 July 2010 ALP press release - Albanese, Parke 1.5 Wynnum to get a GP Super Clinic - Friday, 30 July 2010 ALP press release - Roxon, Rea 15 New Standards for Storing Collectables and Personal Use Assets Held by Self-Managed Superannuation Funds - Friday, 30 July 2010 ALP press release - Bowen, Garrett 0 Defence armed with cutting edge technology - Friday, 30 July 2010 ALP press release - Combet, Owens 14.2 Labor commits to make Walloon and Rosewood safer - Friday, 30 July 2010 ALP press release - O'Connor, Neumann 0.25 Federal Labor investing in Bennelong community infrastructure - Friday, 30 July 2010 ALP press release - Plibersek, McKew 1.6 Upgrade for Western Sydney International Hockey Centre - Friday, 30 July 2010 ALP press release - Bradbury, Sherry 1 New City of Canning Multipurpose Community Centre - Friday, 30 July 2010 ALP press release - Albanese, Hammond 7 Protecting Gladstone from major flooding - Saturday, 31 July 2010 ALP press release - O'connor, Trevor 0.555 Federal Labor commits to make Townsville safer - Saturday, 31 July 2010 ALP press release - O'Connor, Mooney 0.35 New GP Super Clinic for Northam - Saturday, 31 July 2010 ALP press release - Roxon, Gillard, Leadbetter 3 GP Superclinic for Karratha - Saturday, 31 July 2010 ALP press release - Roxon, Pratt 7 Federal Labor investing in Ballina Infrastructure - Sunday, 1 August 2010 ALP press release - Albanese, Saffin 2.3 Giving Malabar headland back to the people - Sunday, 1 August 2010 ALP press release - Gillard, Garrett, Tanner (Bowen was there not Tanner) 0 Labor helps families save with simpler low-cost super - Sunday, 1 August 2010 ALP press release - Gillard, Garrett, Swan (Bowen was there not Swan 21.1 Julia Gillard and Jim Stynes help tomorrow's leaders reach their potential - Sunday, 1 August 2010 ALP press release - Gillard, Crean, Ellis 4 Gillard Labor Government invests in Bundaberg infrastructure - Sunday, 1 August 2010 ALP press release - Albanese, McNeven 1.5 Federal Labor's blacksoil interchange pledge - Sunday, 1 August 2010 ALP press release - Albanese, Neumann ? More sporting opportunities for remote Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory - Sunday, 1 August 2010 ALP press release - Snowdon 0.5 Federal Labor Investing in Caboolture Infrastructure - Monday, 2 August 2010 ALP press release - Albanese, Sullivan 3 Investing in the Southern Districts Soccer Association - Monday, 2 August 2010 ALP press release - Albanese, Burke, Digance 0.025 Gillard Labor Government supports families with teenagers - Monday, 2 August 2010 ALP press release - Gillard 668 Gillard Government gives power to parents and principals - Monday, 2 August 2010 ALP press release - Gillard, Crean 71.9 Orange City pipeline gets the green light - Monday, 2 August 2010 ALP press release - Hutchings 20 Supporting Family Dispute Resolution Services in Hasluck - Monday, 2 August 2010 ALP press release - McClelland, Jackson 0.05 Federal Labor Commits to Make Charles Treasure Park Safer - Monday, 2 August 2010 ALP press release - McClelland, Hammond 0.125 Helping Sydney residents secure water supplies - Monday, 2 August 2010 ALP press release - Plibersek 7.6 Federal Labor Investing in Murwillumbah Infrastructure - Monday, 2 August 2010 ALP press release - Albanese, Elliot 1.5 New Youth Community Centre for Clarence Valley - Monday, 2 August 2010 ALP press release - Saffin, Ellis 1.7 Policy Transition Group Membership and Terms of Reference - Tuesday, 3 August 2010 ALP press release - Ferguson, Swan ? Australia's First Ever National Food Plan - Our Food, Our Future - Tuesday, 3 August 2010 ALP press release - Burke ? State of the art sporting campus for Central Coast - Tuesday, 3 August 2010 ALP press release - Albanese, Thomson, O'Neill, Gillard 10 Better access to family payments - Wednesday, 4 August 2010 ALP press release - Gillard, Macklin 54.4 Developing Rugby League in Cairns - Wednesday, 4 August 2010 ALP press release - Albanese, Gillard, Turnour 3.5 Federal Labor to deliver more hospital beds for Cairns - Wednesday, 4 August 2010 ALP press release - Gillard, Turnour 14.4 Support for farmers and producers to expand their business - Wednesday, 4 August 2010 ALP press release - Burke, Champion 15.4 Federal Labor investing in health facilities for South-Western Sydney - Wednesday, 4 August 2010 ALP press release - Butler, Bleasdale 5 Labor commits to make Robertson safer - Wednesday, 4 August 2010 ALP press release - O'Connor, O'Neill 0.1 Delivering school funding certainty - Wednesday, 4 August 2010 ALP press release - Gillard, Crean 0 Investing in Legal Services on the Central Coast - Wednesday, 4 August 2010 ALP press release - O'Connor, Thomson 0.138 New GP Super Clinic and Better Hospital Facilities for Gilmore - Wednesday, 4 August 2010 ALP press release - Elliott, Reilly 7 Gillard Government Invests in More Beds at Queens Elizabeth II Hospital - Wednesday, 4 August 2010 ALP press release - Roxon, Perrett 15 New GP Super Clinic for Port Macquarie Under Federal Labor - Wednesday, 4 August 2010 ALP press release - Stephens, Lips 7 Seniors will be Safer in Woy Woy - Wednesday, 4 August 2010 ALP press release - O'Connor, O'Neill 0.15 Building a new Outlook Community Centre in Pakenham - Wednesday, 4 August 2010 ALP press release - Albanese, Smyth 3.2 Gillard Labor Government in health services for the Blue Mountains - Wednesday, 4 August 2010 ALP press release - Butler, Templeman 0.27 Volunteer grants to support local community groups - Wednesday, 4 August 2010 ALP press release - Macklin, Symon 0.088 Gillard Labor Government increasing more support for small businesses in Leichhardt - Wednesday, 4 August 2010 ALP press release - Gillard, Turnour, Emerson 0.5 Federal Labor improve health through the Great Southern GP Network - Wednesday, 4 August 2010 ALP press release - Bishop. Sterle 0.558 Daintree Rainforest Observatory for North Queensland - Wednesday, 4 August 2010 ALP press release - Gillard, Turnour, Carr 9.37 Moving forward with high speed - Thursday, 5 August 2010 ALP press release - Albanese 20 Federal Labor investing in health services for Goomalling - Thursday, 5 August 2010 ALP press release - Sterle, Bishop Gillard Labor Government Investing in Health Services at Blacktown - Thursday, 5 August 2010 ALP press release - Bishop, Rowland 0.854 New Youth Community Centre for Bellingen - Thursday, 5 August 2010 ALP press release - Stephens 2 Gillard Government boosting health workforce and research in Townsville - Thursday, 5 August 2010 ALP press release - Gillard, Mooney 7.5 Townsville Ring Road delivered by Gillard Labor Government - Thursday, 5 August 2010 ALP press release - Gillard, Albanese, Mooney 160 Moving Australia forward by investing in rail's future - Thursday, 5 August 2010 ALP press release - Albanese ? Federal Labor Government to deliver more affordable rental homes in Ballarat - Thursday, 5 August 2010 ALP press release - Plibersek, King ? New digital equipment for Breastscreen Tasmania - Thursday, 5 August 2010 ALP press release - Jackson, Collins, Elliot 4 Gillard Labor Government Improving the Health of Local Coasts and Waterways - Thursday, 5 August 2010 ALP press release - Garrett, MacTiernan 3.1 Investing in Legal Services in Kingston - Thursday, 5 August 2010 ALP press release - McClelland, Rishworth 0.217 A new North Melbourne Community Sports Hub - Thursday, 5 August 2010 ALP press release - Albanese, Bowtell 1.9 Gateway to Richmond's Victoria St - Thursday, 5 August 2010 ALP press release - Albanese, Bowtell 0.5 Support for Northey Street City Farm - Thursday, 5 August 2010 ALP press release - Wong, Bevis 0.13 Gillard Labor Government supports new sustainable housing development in Brisbane - Thursday, 5 August 2010 ALP press release - Wong, D'Ath 7.13 More hospital beds and a GP Super Clinic for the Central Coast - Thursday, 5 August 2010 ALP press release - Roxon, O'Neill 12 Federal Labor Government to deliver more affordable rental homes in Geelong - Friday, 6 August 2010 ALP press release - Plibersek, Marles, Cheeseman ? Gillard Labor Government investing in the health of Adelaide's environment - Friday, 6 August 2010 ALP press release - Garrett, Digance 6.6 Investing in All-Access Essendon Sporting and Community Hub - Friday, 6 August 2010 ALP press release - Albanese, Macklin, Shorten 6 More hospital beds for West Melbourne hospitals - Friday, 6 August 2010 ALP press release - Roxon, Gillard, Shorten 36 Federal Labor commits to making Wattle Grove safer - Friday, 6 August 2010 ALP press release - O'connor, Thomas 0.05 Federal Labor commits to making Engadine safer - Friday, 6 August 2010 ALP press release - O'connor, Thomas 0.05 A new grandstand for the Windsor Wolves - Friday, 6 August 2010 ALP press release - Albanese, Templeman 2.5 Stormwater Projects Help Melbourne Become More Sustainable - Friday, 6 August 2010 ALP press release - Wong, Tanner 14.2 New autism services for young children on the Sunshine Coast - Friday, 6 August 2010 ALP press release - Macklin, Sullican, McIntyre 1.8 Revitalisation for Dubbo Regional Theatre and Convention Centre - Friday, 6 August 2010 ALP press release - Albanese 1.2 Delivering for seniors - Saturday, 7 August 2010 ALP press release - Gillard 100 Federal Labor to deliver safety boost for residents in Glenelg - Saturday, 7 August 2010 ALP press release - O'Connor, Georganas 0.35 A first class upgrade to Spring Creek Reserve - Saturday, 7 August 2010 ALP press release - Albanese, Cheeseman 0.6 Federal Labor to deliver more chaplains for Australian schools - Sunday, 8 August 2010 ALP press release - Gillard, Crean 222 Helping Coastal Communities Plan for Future Development - Sunday, 8 August 2010 ALP press release - Wong 2 No School No Play initiative to keep young people in school - Sunday, 8 August 2010 ALP press release - Ellis, Smyth, Arbib, Crean 2 New sub-acute beds for Royal Darwin Hospital - Sunday, 8 August 2010 ALP press release - Hale, Gillard 164 1,200 new affordable rental homes in Darwin and Palmerston - Sunday, 8 August 2010 ALP press release - Gillard, Hale, Macklin ? Breaking the cycle of alcohol and drug abuse in Indigenous communities - Sunday, 8 August 2010 ALP press release - Macklin, Snowdon 20 Labor investing in health services for the far south coast - Monday, 9 August 2010 ALP press release - Kelly, Snowdon 0.856 Support the continuation of the work of the Garma Festival through a complementary commitment of $2 million to support the Garma Cultural Studies Institute.  Speech: Jenny Macklin, Address to the Garma Festival, North East Arnhem Land - Monday, 9 August 2010 2 Establish an Expert Panel comprising Indigenous leaders, constitutional lawyers, Members of Parliament, and community representatives to gain community support for for Indigenous recognition in the constitution Speech: Jenny Macklin, Address to the Garma Festival, North East Arnhem Land - Monday, 9 August 2010 ? Federal Labor commits to saving the Victorian College of the Arts - Monday, 9 August 2010 ALP press release - Gillard, Bowtell, Crean 20 More Dental Services to Improve Indigenous Health - Monday, 9 August 2010 ALP press release - Kelly, Snowdon 0.38 World class Australian qualification to match world class education - Monday, 9 August 2010 ALP press release - Gillard, Crean 2.1 Online diagnostic tools for parents and teachers - Monday, 9 August 2010 ALP press release - Gillard, Crean 39.8 Reward payments for teachers - Monday, 9 August 2010 ALP press release - Gillard, Crean 175.1 Reward for school improvement program to drive better schools - Monday, 9 August 2010 ALP press release - Gillard, Crean 164.7 Strengthening the non-profit sector - Monday, 9 August 2010 ALP press release - Bowtell, Macklin, Sherry, Stephens ? Gillard Labor Government delivers integrated health centre for Rockingham Kwinana - Monday, 9 August 2010 ALP press release - Butler, Gray 7 Upgrading the Gateway to the Blue Mountains National Park - Monday, 9 August 2010 ALP press release - Garrett, Albanese, Templeman ? Federal Labor commits to make Blackwood safer - Monday, 9 August 2010 ALP press release - O'Connor, Digance 0.1 Training More Doctors for Bundaberg and Hervey Bay - Monday, 9 August 2010 ALP press release - Roxon, McNeven 1.5 Federal Labor to Deliver Safety Boost for Residents in Glenelg - Monday, 9 August 2010 ALP press release - O'Connor, Georganas 0.35 Labor Commits to Making Sheidow Park Safer - Monday, 9 August 2010 ALP press release - O'Connor, Rishworth 0.1   TOTAL 5827.7   ? = no funding amount provided   Media Contact: Brad Stansfield 0439 017 669 pm/Sam Fairlie-Cunninghame 0438 285 780 am Andrew Robb Tue, 10 Aug 2010 00:07:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1162 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1161/Gillard-Says-Labor-Didnt-End-Up-Delivering.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1161 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1161&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1161/Gillard-Says-Labor-Didnt-End-Up-Delivering.aspx Julia Gillard has confirmed what families struggling with the cost of living have known for three years: Labor didn’t deliver what they promised. On 3AW this morning when asked about cost of living pressures and the promises made by Labor during the 2007 election campaign, Julia Gillard stated: “Well, what we’ve done on cost of living, yeah, you know. There were some things ah, fuel watch and other things that we didn’t end up delivering.” Julia Gillard has flagged that families can’t believe what Labor promises in 2010 because she ‘didn’t end up delivering’ the promises from the 2007 campaign. This admission from Julia Gillard is proof families can’t trust Labor to deliver on its promises. Labor simply can’t be trusted because they can’t deliver. Instead of simply admitting Labor failed to deliver, Julia Gillard should be apologising to the Australian public. In the same interview Julia Gillard claimed – in reference to continued Labor infighting, leaks and Kevin Rudd; “it’s not about us”, despite telling The Daily Telegraph on Monday in reference to the campaign that; “it’s about me”. If Julia Gillard doesn’t know what this election campaign is about, how does she expect the Australian public to trust her with their future? The Coalition have a strong message to Australian families: we will end the waste, repay the debt, stop the new taxes and stop the boats. Media Contact: Cameron Hill 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Tue, 10 Aug 2010 00:02:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1161 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1160/Labor-Will-Roll-Out-Economic-Falsehoods-for-Debate-or-What-Wayne-Wishes-Was-True.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1160 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1160&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1160/Labor-Will-Roll-Out-Economic-Falsehoods-for-Debate-or-What-Wayne-Wishes-Was-True.aspx People interested in today’s economic debate should be prepared for a barrage of Labor falsehoods and spin as Wayne Swan tries to defend his poor fiscal record by attacking everyone else. Here are some robotic Labor messages, phrases and inane repetition you will hear from Wayne Swan – and their real meaning: “Coles and Woolworths tax” A Labor phrase designed to scare families about a temporary levy. Coles Managing Director Ian McLeod said on 31 July he was more worried about rising energy prices. Gerry Harvey described it thusly: “That’s crap, it is 100% crap.” The Coalition is reducing company tax by 1.5% for 770,000 companies. “Uncosted promises”  The Coalition introduced the Charter of Budget Honesty. As of this morning the Coalition has submitted more documents for costing than Labor for this campaign. During the last election Labor submitted 123 policies after the costings cut-off date, and 103 less than 3 days before the election. Labor continues to claim things are paid for with the magic pudding that lives “in the forward estimates” without providing details. “Saved us from recession”  Wayne Swan should be thanking the Coalition who left him with zero net debt, a $20 billion budget surplus and billions in future funds. Australia’s performance against the rest of the world was a direct result of the health of our economy before the GFC struck, unlike other nations who were already saddled with debt. “No economic plan” The Coalition has already outlined a program of savings to wind-back Labor’s reckless spending and plan to repay Labor’s debt. Only the Coalition has outlined a clear framework in Coalition Economic Principles: Rebuilding Sustainable Prosperity. Although Labor’s faceless men would like to think repeating the same phrase over and over makes it true, the public know that’s not the case. A Coalition Government will end the waste, repay the debt, stop the new taxes, stop the boats and help families. Media Contact: Cameron Hill, 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Mon, 09 Aug 2010 05:27:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1160 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1171/Swan-Completely-Wrong-on-Costing-Claims.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1171 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1171&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1171/Swan-Completely-Wrong-on-Costing-Claims.aspx Wayne Swan has failed to check his facts before rushing to incorrectly claim a contradiction by the Coalition on spending measures. Today at the National Press Club Mr Hockey provided a total expenditure figure including the mining tax. On AM this morning, Mr Abbott was specifically asked about the Coalition’s saving and expenditure, excluding the mining tax. LYNDAL CURTIS: You having your savings money - you're not spending from a mining tax you won't impose. Given you're not getting the money from the mining tax, once you take that $9 billion out of the picture, do your promises during this campaign come within the envelope that's left? TONY ABBOTT: Oh yes, yes absolutely. We've identified including the mining tax something like $28 billion of cuts to recurrent spending, recurrent expenditure reductions and take the $10 billion or so out of the mining tax, that's still about $18 billion worth of reductions in recurrent expenditure. And our promised expenditure is well under that. LYNDAL CURTIS: What is your promised expenditure going to be at, at the end of the campaign? TONY ABBOTT: We will get back to surplus in 2012/13 and it will be a bigger surplus than the one that the Labor Party is promising. LYNDAL CURTIS: So your spending will be under that $18 billion figure? TONY ABBOTT: Yes that's correct. (AM, 9/8/10) Mr Abbott was correct. The Coalition spending will be under $18 billion excluding the mining tax. Mr Hockey was correct. The Coalition spending is currently at $25.7 billion including the mining tax. The claim that opposition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey has contradicted Tony Abbott to the tune of $7 billion during today’s economic debate at the National Press Club is plainly wrong and deliberately deceptive. Media Contact: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Mon, 09 Aug 2010 03:10:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1171 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1159/Interview-on-Sky-News-PM-Agenda.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1159 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1159&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1159/Interview-on-Sky-News-PM-Agenda.aspx Helen Dalley: And so the campaign is neck and neck, which is why Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott wound up in Queensland today.  With the polls tightening, the Prime Minister is repeating her mantra that she’s in the fight of her life.  The Liberal Party, which had been celebrating a surge in the polls earlier in the week, is now preparing for its launch tomorrow in Brisbane, knowing that it too has a fight on its hands.  We’re joined now by the Shadow Minister for Finance, Andrew Robb, from Melbourne.  Andrew Robb, thanks for joining us. Andrew Robb:  That’s my pleasure, Helen. Helen Dalley:  Now both parties are going after the grey vote.  The Prime Minister has announced an extra $100 million today to be spent on senior Australians to allow them to earn more without it hurting their pensions.  Now that’s a change that’s expected to benefit 25,000 part time pensioners.  You would support those positive moves for seniors, wouldn’t you? Andrew Robb:  We’re keen to help seniors wherever we can.  Of course, it was the coalition who introduced the private members bill a couple of years ago, which saw an unprecedented $30 a week paid to pensioners.  If it wasn’t for that bill that we introduced, pensioners would be today a lot worse off than they are.  So it’s, as we announced the other day, an initiative to encourage and assist those over 50 right through to any pensioner age to get work.  We provided a $3,250 incentive for employers, as well as changing dramatically some of the super arrangements so that older seniors could certainly still be entitled to any superannuation accruement right up until whenever they choose to stop working. Helen Dalley:  I presume with the Prime Minister adding her bit to the seniors’ policy today, really seniors would be very happy about what’s happening for them.  But let’s switch tack to Tony Abbott had his meeting with the Nauru President today.  Seeing as he admitted only a government can negotiate with another government, was it an election campaign stunt to pressure Labor on the asylum seeker issue? Andrew Robb:  No, it wasn’t.  Julia Gillard, instead of pursuing the continuing soap opera that we’ve seen in Brisbane today with Julia Gillard meeting the former Prime Minister and being confronted by the former leader of the opposition, Mark Latham, she could have met the President of Nauru to see whether there is a possibility to do something immediately about boats.  Tony Abbott is showing that some action can start, and it can start immediately once an election is concluded. Helen Dalley:  But is it a front and centre issue, do you think, in voters’ minds right across the country? Andrew Robb:  It’s a very important issue.  After the cost of living issue, the pressure that’s been put on by Labor’s reckless spending, which has increased interest rates by some six times in a row now, apart from that cost of living pressure I think the boat people and the whole issue of immigration, the population size and what is a sustainable situation in that area, that is front of mind for many people in Australia. Helen Dalley:  Just the boat people issue is front and centre of your campaign slogan.  I just want to change tack to the polls today.  They still have things pretty neck and neck, but the coalition is ahead on a two party preferred basis, 51 to 49, and on a primary vote as well, that’s in the Nielsen poll.  How confident are you feeling? Andrew Robb:  At the moment, it’s always difficult.  We’ll be breaking 80 years of history to defeat a first term government.  It hasn’t happened since the Great Depression. Helen Dalley:  But those polls seem to be suggesting you’re going to do it. Andrew Robb:  It’s still very tight.  Two weeks is a long time, especially in this campaign.  Most campaigns, I think, where you start is where you finish, but this is a fundamentally different campaign - the developments within the government over the last six weeks, the continuing soap opera.  I thought today Julia Gillard is looking more and more a diminished figure.  As these former leaders of the party appear, it’s making her look diminished by the day.  It is also, I think, reminding people that if Labor is re-elected, you’re going to see the almighty power struggle.  There’ll be retribution, vendettas, and you will see a most unstable government, I think for two or three years.  If we had another double dip recession, it will put Australia in even a worse position than we are economically under this Labor government. Helen Dalley:  Are you predicting a double-dip recession? Andrew Robb:  Many of the business people that I deal with who’ve got global connections, and I don’t think I’ve met an analyst yet who doesn’t think that sometime in the next 18 months to two years that the sovereign debt that now is beleaguering so many countries, across Europe, the United States with trillions of dollars of debt, Japan, that that will coalesce . . . Helen Dalley: . . . But sorry Andrew Robb, are you suggesting that Australia will have a double dip recession, which is what you seem to be indicating? Andrew Robb:  The last one was really a northern hemisphere problem in essence. Helen Dalley:  And the sovereign debt is still the northern hemisphere problem, isn’t it? Andrew Robb:  It is still, but it really fell apart.  Of course, it affected the southern hemisphere, including Australia.  But I suppose my point is that when so many people fear, and even the Reserve Bank’s message on Friday was that there are storm clouds in other parts of the world, the priority must be to restore the resilience that the Rudd/Gillard government inherited when they took over, where we had no debt, when we had billions of dollars in reserves, when we had 4% unemployment.  Now we’ve got this debt, this reckless spending.  You haven’t heard the word debt mentioned by this government through the whole campaign.  There’s no sense. Helen Dalley:  Well, I think they have mentioned it. Andrew Robb:  It’s all as though the next three or four years are going to be Nirvana.  We must prepare as a country to confront any sorts of problems that may appear in the next two or three years, and it’s not happening with the other side.  They’re preoccupied with themselves. Helen Dalley:  So Andrew Robb, if I could go back to my original question, therefore if you believe all that is happening and the electorate accepts that, you must be feeling very confident that you’re going to be voted in? Andrew Robb:  The electorate are being told by the government of the day that the next four years and beyond is Nirvana.  Hopefully nothing happens around the world, but most experienced commentators are saying we have to prepare ourselves just in case, because there is a real prospect of some sort of downturn.  You can’t keep the reckless spending programs and the debt going up at $100 million a day, that’s what it’s going to for the next two years under the Gillard government.  So we really have a government that’s in fairyland, and they’re running a soap opera.  The whole campaign has been overwhelmed by the antics on the other side of politics, nothing to do with policy. Helen Dalley:  If I could move it on, you’ve made that point.  One poll result, though, that must be worrying you is that Julia Gillard is quite far ahead of Tony Abbott on the preferred prime minister stakes.  Does that mean that Tony Abbott is not successfully convincing the electorate to vote him in as prime minister? Andrew Robb:  No, I don’t think at all.  In fact, usually on that indicator, the prime minister of the day, whoever it is, even if they’re well behind in the polls, invariably people get asked that question, and invariably you see the incumbent getting a better score.  I think the main thing is to see how we are faring on who’s best for running the economy, who’s best for stopping the boats, who’s best for getting the debt down, who’s best for stopping taxes, who’s best for helping families.  On all of those fronts, we’re in a very strong position.  As well, the voting intention is very close across the country.  So the bottom line is, it’s a real contest, and the next two weeks will be fundamentally important.  People have to see who really is in a position to start to do some serious things, get them done, not all talk and no action as we’ve had for three years.  That’s the judgment that people will be making, and that’s really out of the launch tomorrow.  We want to start to put the meat on those bones. Helen Dalley:  I wanted to ask you about the Liberal Party official launch tomorrow.  Are you expecting that will give you a huge boost? Andrew Robb:  We would hope that it’ll bring some attention on the program. Helen Dalley:  What can voters expect? Andrew Robb:  There’ll be no grab bag of promises.  I think the important thing out of our launch tomorrow is to lay out a really strong program of what must be done and when it can be done, so that people can see that we have not only a plan to end the waste and to repay the debt and to stop the taxes and stop the boats and to help families, but we’ve actually got a series of quite doable things that must be done to achieve that.  The last three years has been a total frustration for many in the electorate, because they were told so much.  It’s really been like a home handyman, Kevin Rudd and now Julia Gillard, who start 100 jobs and don’t finish any of them. Helen Dalley:  Andrew Robb, I presume that Malcolm Fraser, former prime minister, will not be attending, but will former prime minister John Howard be very much centre of attention, alongside Tony Abbott? Andrew Robb:  John Howard will certainly be a celebrated figure.  He is, wherever he goes.  He’s someone who delivers so much for the country, and in the end that’s what we’re all here for and that’s why the party elected him prime minister to lead our party and to be prime minister.  So he’s a celebrated figure and we’re looking forward to seeing him, but the focus will be on the future and what Tony and his team can deliver.  We really are champing at the bit to start to do some things of real consequence to help families and to really protect Australia from any things that might be coming over the horizon in an economic sense, and to get on and grow this economy. Helen Dalley:  Andrew Robb, we will leave it there.  Thanks very much for joining us. Andrew Robb:  Thanks, Helen.  Thank you very much. Andrew Robb Sat, 07 Aug 2010 00:54:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1159 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1158/Labors-Policy-Costing-Hypocrisy.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1158 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1158&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1158/Labors-Policy-Costing-Hypocrisy.aspx Prior to the last election Labor submitted just 32 policies for costing before the cut-off date and a shameful 123 after the cut-off. This included the submission of 104 policies within just three working days of the election. The Coalition will be submitting all our policies for costing under the Charter of Budget Honesty, which was set up by the Coalition, after inheriting a $96 billion black hole from Labor following the 1996 election. Already, 34 policies, including 28 savings proposals totalling $5.7 billion and six spending proposals have been submitted. This is 11 more policies to date than Labor has submitted. When you consider Labor’s appalling track record in the lead-up to the 2007 Federal election, its attacks on the Coalition are frankly laughable. Big ticket items that Labor submitted just before the election included its first and failed NBN proposal, its commitment to build new childcare centres which it has now all but abandoned, its so-called education revolution and GP Super Clinics. Department of Finance and Administration said: “As these requests were received after Thursday 15 November 2007, Finance was unable to satisfactorily complete the costings prior to the election.” As of yesterday Labor has so far identified a paltry $1.994 billion in savings and remains $134 million in the red when it comes to off-setting its new spending commitments. We are still waiting for the “hard choices and unpopular cutbacks” promised by Julia Gillard during her ‘economic’ address to the Australian Press Club last month. It’s a bit rich for Wayne Swan to try and lecture the Coalition. Media Contact: Cameron Hill, 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Fri, 06 Aug 2010 05:06:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1158 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1157/Gillard-Refuses-to-Discuss-Cash-for-Clunkers-Silence-Confirms-Cost-Blow-Outs-Another-Costly-Flaw-Exposed.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1157 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1157&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1157/Gillard-Refuses-to-Discuss-Cash-for-Clunkers-Silence-Confirms-Cost-Blow-Outs-Another-Costly-Flaw-Exposed.aspx Julia Gillard has refused to acknowledge the pending financial disaster of the Cash for Clunkers “Pink Batts on Wheels” scheme. This morning on ABC 774 Julia Gillard was quizzed about the widespread criticism of the scheme and she refused to answer the question - instead replying that Labor had costed all it policies. However the Departments of Treasury and Finance has already determined that Labor’s costs have blown out. Not one Labor minister has contradicted the fact that the scheme will blow out in cost to $800 million from the estimated $400 million that it would cost to run. Today another costly flaw has been uncovered in the Cash for Clunkers “Pink Batts on Wheels” scheme that will see the cost of it blow out even further than the estimated $800 million that it will cost to run. The Department of Finance in its analysis of the scheme has noted: “It has been assumed that the cost of scrapping vehicles traded in under the proposal will be met by motor vehicle dealers, although Finance notes the arrangements for the scrapping are to be determined following consultation with industry.” Because the $2000 rebate goes to the purchaser of a new car and the trade in has to be “crushed and sold as scrap” - the dealer will be left with nothing except the value of scrapping the car which is about $80 per tonne. The dealer will be significantly out of pocket as they would have to also pay for the vehicle to be towed or trucked to a scrap yard and it is unlikely that the $80 would cover that cost and the administrative work associated with getting rid of the car. Not only would the dealer be out of pocket on that transaction, but the dealer will also lose because he will not be able to either resell the trade-in his yard or sell it to a wrecker where you could expect about $1000 or so return for a 1992 Tarago. For a dealer to participate, the government would have to reimburse the dealer for the lost earnings from the sale of the trade in and also for the cost of scrapping it. The government would have to meet the trade value either as a resale or as a car for wrecking. Using Labor’s own example of a 1992 Tarago traded-in for minimum of between $1500 and $3600 Labor would have to reimburse the dealer a minimum of $1500 if he was not to be out of pocket. Even being generous and allowing for a minimum of $1000 per vehicle traded that would see the government having to reimburse dealers some $200 million ($1000 multiplied by 200,000 cars) which has not been allowed for. Labor has not included these costs in its scheme which Industry Minister Kim Carr has already pointed out would cost $1 billion. The figures are now coming home to roost for the Labor Party with its Cash for Clunkers “Pink batts on Wheels” scheme. It is yet another extravagant example of the waste and mismanagement that characterises the Rudd/Gillard government. No wonder Julia Gillard and her ministers do not want to discuss such a disaster. We’ll end the waste and stop Labor’s reckless spending. Media Contact: Cameron Hill, 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Fri, 06 Aug 2010 05:02:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1157 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1156/Doorstop-Interview-with-the-Hon-Andrew-Robb-AO-MP.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1156 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1156&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1156/Doorstop-Interview-with-the-Hon-Andrew-Robb-AO-MP.aspx Topics: Labor’s debt, Wayne Swan not knowing interest repayments on Labor’s borrowings, Julia Gillard’s untruths about Coalition company tax plan. E&OE ANDREW ROBB: I’d just like to make a few comments about the economy and the economic competence of the Government. There’s no doubt that the result of this election will turn on who is best placed to clean up the economic mess that the country finds itself in, who is best placed to get rid of the $90 billion, the $90 thousand million, of debt, who is best placed to get rid of the $57 billion of deficit, who is best place to take pressure of interest rates which are now the highest in the western world, who is best placed to stop the new taxes, the great big new taxes, the $10 billion mining tax, $20 billion carbon tax, who is best placed to take the pressure off the cost of living. Now, today in seeking to make his case on a radio program this morning, the Treasurer of the country, Wayne Swan, made the most extraordinary admission. When asked, what was the interest on the debt paid each week by the Government, he failed to answer – twice he was asked, twice he didn’t know the answer. The fact is this Government is borrowing $700 million a week every week, and the Budget papers confirmed that will continue. $700 million a week every week, for the next two years. It’s an extraordinary amount of borrowings. It’s the equivalent of a brand new world class hospital a week that we’re borrowing. And yet when asked, what is the interest payment on that debt, Mr Swan had no idea. Here he is, the Treasurer of the country, borrowing $700 million a week, who receives a Treasury briefing every morning, has no idea what is the interest that we’re paying as a country. Well I can inform Mr Swan that at the moment, Australia, the Australian Government, using tax payers’ money, is spending $81 million every week in paying interest on the loans that they are accruing. Now, the really important point is that they’re borrowing $700 million a week and they’re paying $81 million in interest payments which means the Government is borrowing to pay the interest. Our Government, Wayne Swan, Julia Gillard, are borrowing $81 million a week to pay the interest – they’re borrowing $700 million a week but $81 million of that is to pay the interest. It means that as a country we’ve got ourselves into the extraordinary situation where Wayne Swan or Julia Gillard are borrowing $700 million a week to pay, in part, to pay the interest on our debt. Now, I think every family understands, that if they have to borrow to pay the interest on their debt, they are in big trouble, they are on a slippery slope if that happens. And this is case for the country. It’s grossly irresponsible. And for the Treasurer of the country not to have any inkling of what the interest bill is each week on the money borrowed, just shows what an economic lightweight Wayne Swan our Treasurer is. On a second matter, this campaign of Labor’s is starting to fall apart. It’s dysfunctional. As such they’ve got no plan to offer, they’ve got no idea as to how to remove the debt and bring down the cost of living increases, and they’re divided, they’re divided. As a consequence they are getting desperate. As a Government and as an opponent they are getting desperate. We’re starting to see endless lies and misrepresentations and distortions. There are two examples of that, this morning, the Prime Minister in a press conference made the statement that Tony Abbott will do nothing for small business, that he’s got no plan to reduce small business tax and that he’s got no plan to benefit small business who are under great pressure. Of course, Julia Gillard, would know, should know, does know, that we announced a week ago that small business, if we are elected to government, will see a tax reduction of one and a half per cent in the corporate tax. That’s 700,000 small businesses that will benefit from a one and half per cent cut in corporate taxation. Now the Labor Party is proposing to cut small business taxation by one per cent. So not only was she wrong, not only was she lying to the Australian people, not only was she misleading the Australian people, but in fact the Coalition is doing more on tax reductions than the Labor party for small business. The other area is the question of costings. On a daily basis we’re seeing faceless men, we’re seeing Wayne Swan and we’re seeing the Prime Minister herself, making totally fallacious comments and observations about our costings and our programs. The fact of the matter is, you know, you’ve got a Treasurer who doesn’t even have a clue about what is the interest bill on the country’s massive debt, its $90 billion of debt, how could he competently make any comments about our costings and our programs? The fact is that we have, we have announced now some $46.7 billion worth of savings, $24 billion on the current account and $22 billion on the capital account. We will have our program, fully costed, fully funded, and we will demonstrate how we can start to make inroads on the debt that this Government has accrued. We have already submitted 34 programs, savings programs or spending programs to the Treasury for their costings. This is eleven programs more than the Government has submitted and here they are daily saying that we’re not doing what we should. We will comply with the Charter of Budget Honesty. We introduced it when we were in government. Unlike the Labor party who last time, delivered 85 per cent of their costing and spending programs at 12.30pm on the Friday before the election, less than 12 hours before election day. It was just a joke, it was an insult and it was in complete contravention to the Charter of Budget Honesty. We will comply with the Charter of Budget Honesty. We will demonstrate prudential financial management. We will show Australia that we are the best placed to clean up the horrific debt, the interest rate pressures and the cost of living pressures that people are facing. JOURNALIST: Mr Robb, on costings, two of the big savings measures that the Coalition has announced, I wanted to ask whether they had been submitted yet for official costing – the freeze on public sector recruitment for two years, which I think Mr Abbott says will save $3.8 billion, and the saving on interest through not proceeding the with the NBN, the National Broadband Network, saving $2.4. Have those to big savings been submitted for formal costing to Treasury or Finance and if not, why not? ANDREW ROBB: They haven’t yet been submitted. We have submitted programs which I think amount to over $5 billion worth of savings. We have submitted spending programs which are around the $300 million mark, several programs, six, I think in total. Those two programs that you’ve referred to, along with others, have been submitted to the independent accounting group that we have commissioned to audit, if you like, our costings and spending programs, before we submit them to Treasury. Now last week, the official economic numbers were released on which both parties were extensively to base their costings. They were released on Monday, I suspect the Government had some forewarning of those numbers, but I’m not criticising that. But we got them on Monday. We spent, internally, two days readjusting as best we could, our costings. Then we submitted a large body of work to our accounting, independent accounting group. JOURNALIST: Have you had any advice back from them yet on those two big programs? ANDREW ROBB: No, we’ve submitted, as they’ve worked through programs, we are then submitted those to Treasury. We’ve made two, in less than a week, we’ve made two submissions, and in fact now we’ve got as I said eleven more programs have been submitted to Treasury than the Government. So they’re in position, they’re in no position on any grounds actually. They have also accused us of you know getting our numbers wrong on things like the Education Tax Rebate, which was a nonsense. You know those figures they had us spending twice what it will cost. They are in no position. You’ve got a Treasurer who doesn’t understand or doesn’t know what the interest bill is which just beggars belief and here they are too which the Cash for Clunkers program, which they’ve estimated at $400 million, Julia Gillard’s own Industry Minister has estimated it will cost $1 billion and Treasury have already found errors in that program in terms of the costing of it. So here’s, you know, one of the first programs out of the blocks and it’s got a $600 million hole in it and it’s also a nonsense program, it’s just buying votes. The Cash for Clunkers will increase the price of vehicles for people who can least afford it, will be rorted in an extraordinary way, has failed overseas and is another example of policy making on the run. JOURNALIST: But on these two big savings measures you remain confident of your numbers? ANDREW ROBB: I’m confident of our numbers on all our savings measures. JOURNALIST: Yesterday, Joe Hockey made a similar blunder to the one Wayne Swan made today… ANDREW ROBB: No, no, no he didn’t. No. Absolutely no comparison and it wasn’t a blunder by Joe Hockey. Joe Hockey was asked what is our debt to GDP ratio, and he said it changes every day, which it does because they’re borrowing $100 million gross every day, $100 million. And Joe Hockey said in his answer it changes every day, so his answer was correct. Today the Treasurer of the country was unable, unable, and when asked several times, to have any indication of what the interest bill was each week on $90 billion of debt. It just beggars belief. This man is dangerous as a Treasurer not only incompetent but dangerous to have someone in charge of the economy. No wonder we’ve got tax and spend and borrowing as the answer to every problem. No wonder we’ve got new taxes being proposed - $10 billion worth of mining tax, which he promoted, he sought to drive through, the carbon tax, which he promoted, he sought to drive through. This is a government which is dangerous to the future of this country and the only way to remove that danger is to remove the Government. JOURNALIST: Tony Abbott said today that he’ll deliver a bigger budget surplus than the Labor can, can you put a figure on how much bigger that surplus will be? ANDREW ROBB: Not at this stage but we will before the election. JOURNALIST: How can you deliver a bigger budget surplus than Labor? ANDREW ROBB: By being more prudent. By firstly cutting programs that are not warranted when we are in such dire financial straits. Secondly by cutting programs and replacing them with more effective spending in a number of areas. You saw it today on the health program, that’s a hugely expensive program, a very important program for the country, but the deal that the Labor party, formally Kevin Rudd with Julia Gillard and the senior colleagues, struck with the states is a monumental increase in bureaucracy. I bet you could not ask one Australian what the Labor Government’s health program will do for them, how it works, what’s involved. People have no idea. What it will mean is another layer of bureaucracy at a regional level. It’ll mean hundreds of more bureaucrats at a federal level. And it means that nobody in Australia has an understanding of what they’re delivering. Today we have delivered, we’ve taken that money, we’re not spending anymore, but in a far more effective spending of money in delivering more nurses, more doctors, more hospital beds, and a whole range of programs, that will mean direct action, not years of bureaucracy before you see any improvement in the health system. JOURNALIST: But isn’t Tony Abbot pre-empting the economic conditions that might exist, that have a great impact on how big a budget surplus is? Isn’t it a bit, you know, without foresight to make a statement that he’ll commit to a bigger budget surplus? ANDREW ROBB: Well what he’s saying is that on the assumption, which we can do nothing else but assume that Treasury has got the forecast right, if those forecasts are right, and we are concerned that the Government has taken the rosiest picture, but if they’re right, we’re going to compare apples with apples, their using those numbers, and we will have to use those forecasts on revenue. On that basis we will demonstrate that on the savings side and on the spending side that we can produce a stronger surplus. We have to. The country has not got the money. We have to, as a country, live within our means. We’ve got a situation today, where the Government is borrowing money every week, to pay the interest bill on the $90 billion debt. No family, no family would put themselves in a situation where they are borrowing to pay the interest on their family debt. No young person should be taking out another credit card, just to pay the interest on the debt on their first credit card. How many people have got in to trouble with that? How many Treasurers have told people to be responsible with their borrowing? Not to be borrowing money to pay off their debt. And yet we’ve got this Government, every week, borrowing $81 million along with the increased borrowings, $81 million of the $700 million that they are borrowing each week is going towards paying the interest on the debt that they have accrued. This is highly irresponsible, something has to be done. We’re living as a country beyond our means. This Government has got us into that situation because their only answer to problems in this country is to spend then to tax and to borrow, and now their gauging money even out of their instrumentalities such as the Medibank Private, their gauging hundreds of millions of dollars to pay for their reckless spending. The reckless spending must stop. That is the answer. The reckless spending must stop. So that we take the pressure off interest rates, so that we start to live within our means, so that we pay off that debt quickly, so that if there is another downturn in the world economy that we have restored some of the resilience that this Government inherited when they took over government three years ago. JOURNALIST: As the man in charge of the Liberal campaign, how’s it going and do you think you can win on August 21 ANDREW ROBB: Well, we are competitive but we’ve got a long way to go. We’re still clearly the underdogs. You only have to look at the betting markets to see that we’re still the underdogs. But we are confident that we are getting an opportunity to lay out a very clear plan for removing the massive debt, for getting rid of the taxes, for stopping the waste, the endless waste, the appalling waste of this Government, and stopping the boats. If we can succeed in the next two weeks, clearly establishing that solid program, I think we will be in with a very competitive opportunity. JOURNALIST: The polls aren’t looking good in Victoria, are you concerned about the Liberals chances in gaining and maintaining seats here? ANDREW ROBB: No, we’ve got two weeks. I’m very confident about the quality of all of our sitting members and I’m very confident, we’ve got some outstanding candidates, and I do think that as people come to make decisions, come to make their decision in a fortnight’s time across the country, I think we will be very competitive. But it’s very difficult, we’re fighting history. It’s nearly 80 years since a first term government was thrown out. And we’ve got, you know, the Prime Minister is a home town girl. So all of those issues but I do think people will focus on in the end, when they go into the polling booth, as to what will be in the best interests of themselves and their families. And if they do that I think we will secure, we should secure at least, the majority of votes. JOURNALIST: (Inaudible) ANDREW ROBB: I think it’s been a very solid campaign, very disciplined. We’re united. I mean the other side of politics, it’s been a daily charade of bitterness really that’s been emerging on their side of politics. They’re so deceived with the brutal way they executed, the faceless men executed the Prime Minister, it has sown the seeds of great disunity within their party and if they do succeed in winning the election of the 21st of August, that will dominate I think their three years, their next three years of government will be dominated by infighting, by payback, by recrimination. We’re seeing it already and it has really, it has really I think, caused great havoc in their campaign and it really is symptomatic of what we’ll see of a Gillard government if they are re-elected. JOURNALIST: Would you give yourself a score out of ten? ANDREW ROBB: I don’t want to start scoring out of ten. We’ve got a long way to go. So I think we’ve, I think it has been a very disciplined campaign. I think Tony Abbott has been exceptional, he’s calm, he’s in charge, he’s clear with his message and if we keep that up for the next two weeks we’ll be in a very competitive position. Andrew Robb Thu, 05 Aug 2010 23:16:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1156 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1155/Rudd-Re-emergence-Labors-Third-Panic-Attack.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1155 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1155&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1155/Rudd-Re-emergence-Labors-Third-Panic-Attack.aspx Kevin Rudd’s reappearance today is Labor’s third panic driven ploy in six weeks. First, Kevin Rudd was assassinated by Labor’s faceless men. Julia Gillard took control.  After the ‘old Julia’ crashed and burned Labor’s backroom boys created and relaunched the ‘real Julia’. Today, a recovering Kevin Rudd launched his comeback. He has done nothing to heal the deep divisions within the Labor Party. These divisions remain unresolved. So, if Kevin Rudd can’t trust Julia Gillard, and Julia Gillard can’t trust Kevin Rudd, how can Australian’s trust Labor to run the country? Media Contact: Cameron Hill, 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Thu, 05 Aug 2010 07:56:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1155 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1154/Swans-Inconvenient-Truth-on-Debt-and-Interest.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1154 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1154&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1154/Swans-Inconvenient-Truth-on-Debt-and-Interest.aspx In a breathtaking display of economic incompetence Treasurer Wayne Swan was today either unable or unwilling to confirm the fact that Labor is borrowing $81 million a week in order to pay the interest on its net debt of $89.4 billion. Everybody knows if you start to borrow to pay the interest on your debt, you are in real trouble. During an interview today on MTR with Steve Price, Mr Swan was asked what the weekly repayment was on Labor’s debt. Mr Swan replied: “Well, I can’t give you the weekly payment on that figure on that debt, in terms of interest. But I can give you the gross figure, because that’s the one that really matters, because it is entirely affordable.” It beggars belief that the Treasurer of our country did not know or could not calculate the weekly interest bill on the $89.4 billion debt that he has accumulated. It speaks volumes about Mr Swan. Labor is borrowing around $700 million each and every week, including $81 million a week in 2010-11 to meet its net interest repayments, increasing to $102 million a week in 2011-12. In a further display of Labor’s desperation and lack of economic credibility, Prime Minister Julia Gillard was caught out blatantly lying to the Australian public. During a press conference today, Ms Gillard claimed that Mr Abbott has: “No real plan to support small business, he’s not going to cut their tax or give them tax breaks.” The Coalition will stop the taxes, delivering a company tax cut of 1.5 per cent to 770,000 companies, including around 700,000 small businesses. Labor is becoming increasingly desperate and will do and say anything to deflect from its own appalling economic record of tax, spend and borrow. Media Contact: Cameron Hill, 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Thu, 05 Aug 2010 07:54:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1154 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1153/Treasury-Confirm-Blow-Out-in-Cash-for-Clunkers-Pink-Batts-on-Wheels-Scheme.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1153 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1153&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1153/Treasury-Confirm-Blow-Out-in-Cash-for-Clunkers-Pink-Batts-on-Wheels-Scheme.aspx The wheels are already beginning to fall off the Cash for Clunkers “Pink Batts on Wheels” scheme with the Departments of Treasury and Finance discovering a $31 million blow out in costs. Labor is trying to squib the blow out by saying they have changed the “profile of expenditure” but “not changed the total cost”. Basically Labor is saying they accept that their costings are wrong, but won’t explain how it can be wrong and not wrong simultaneously. This is just policy on the run. Further Treasury did not address the issues that the Coalition have already raised that to make the scheme work you would have to spend at least $4000 per car instead of the $2000 as guessed by Ms Gillard and Mr Swan. As Treasury noted: “The profile of the estimated expenses over the four years is sensitive to the assumptions that are made regarding the take-up of the rebate where an individual is induced by the rebate to purchase an eligible vehicle.” The Motor Traders Association of NSW estimates that the government would have to offer a minimum of $3000 per vehicle, according to respected online magazine www.goauto.com.au In the same article on March 25 last year industry insiders said the price would have to be nearer $5000 to encourage people to trade their cars. Unless the price is set correctly people will be more likely to sell their car than scrap it. On these estimates the scheme would blow out in cost to $800 million – in line with estimates by Industry Minister Kim Carr that the scheme would cost $1 billion. The cost of Ms Gillard’s ill conceived scheme has been massively underestimated. For it to operate the costs will have to double to $800 million. This scheme has all the hallmarks of the pink batt scheme and the BER. This is just another example of the waste and mismanagement that has characterised Julia Gillard’s government. Ms Gillard has form when it comes to managing these sorts of schemes. Even a cursory examination of the costs associated with the Cash for Clunkers scheme shows it will have to blow out if it is to meet its aims. Labor has now taken to pillaging Medibank private, at a cost of $195 for every one of its two million members to pay for such dodgy and ill-conceived initiatives such as “Pink Batts on Wheels.” Media Contact: Cameron Hill 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Wed, 04 Aug 2010 06:53:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1153 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1152/Eliminating-Labors-Budget-Deficit.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1152 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1152&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1152/Eliminating-Labors-Budget-Deficit.aspx The Coalition will eliminate Labor’s budget deficit in 2012/13, and deliver a surplus in that year. Labor will never deliver a budget surplus because of its addiction to reckless spending. Coalition performance assumes that the forecasts and assumptions being put forward by the current Labor Government are valid. It must be remembered that when Labor last exited Government in 1996, the Coalition was left with a $96 billion debt, and it was revealed the last federal budget delivered by Labor contained a $10 billion black hole it tried to paper over during the election campaign. After three years in office, the Rudd/Gillard Labor Government has failed to deliver a single budget surplus in its entire first term. This Labor Government’s economic record is appalling. This Labor Government has taken us from a $20 billion budget surplus to a $57 billion deficit in just two years. This Labor Government has been forced to borrow money at the rate of $100 million per day to pay for its reckless spending. This Labor Government has saddled families with the interest repayments on that debt, and that will take a long time to pay back. Labor’s only economic policy is for more deficits, more debt and more taxes to pay for its reckless spending. The fact is that every single program Labor have put in place has been subject to cost overruns and blowouts – whether it’s pink batts, green loans, NBN or the wasteful BER – Labor has proven it can’t manage the economics of government. A Coalition Government will end the waste, repay the debt, stop the taxes and stop the boats. Media Contact: Sam Fairlie-Cuninghame on 0438 285 780 Andrew Robb Wed, 04 Aug 2010 06:26:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1152 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1151/Swan-Must-Agree-with-Gillard-on-Economic-Inheritance.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1151 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1151&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1151/Swan-Must-Agree-with-Gillard-on-Economic-Inheritance.aspx The pressure is now on Wayne Swan to agree with Julia Gillard and admit the economic inheritance Labor received from the Coalition was the main reason Australia didn’t suffer like other countries during the global financial crisis. Speaking on Australia’s economic position when the global financial crisis began, Julia Gillard last night told the 7:30 Report: “I think we went into this with some natural advantages - that is true.” Labor’s economic inheritance received courtesy of the Coalition included: Zero Net Debt A huge $20 billion budget surplus $60 billion in the Future Fund 4.5% unemployment (Nov. 2007 ABS) Now that Julia Gillard has admitted it was the Coalition that placed Australia in such a good position to weather the global financial crisis, it’s time Wayne Swan did the same. Instead of repeating the same old Labor lines, Wayne Swan should admit if it weren’t for the Coalition’s economic management, Australia would be suffering like other countries that had large debts when the global financial crisis struck. Unfortunately in just three years Wayne Swan has blown the inheritance, and is borrowing $100 million each and every day to pay for his reckless spending. Labor’s economic policies will deliver more debt, more taxes, more waste and more cost of living pressures for families. A Coalition Government will stop the waste, repay the debt, stop the taxes, stop the boats and help families. Media Contact: Sam Fairlie-Cuninghame 0438 285 780 Andrew Robb Wed, 04 Aug 2010 04:50:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1151 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1149/Swan-Ducks-the-Cost-Blow-Out-with-Cash-for-Clunkers--Pink-Batts-on-Wheels-Questions-Unanswered.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1149 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1149&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1149/Swan-Ducks-the-Cost-Blow-Out-with-Cash-for-Clunkers--Pink-Batts-on-Wheels-Questions-Unanswered.aspx This morning on the ABC’s “AM” programme Wayne Swan ducked the key issue that I raised with Cash for Clunkers and that is that the government has under-estimated the value that has to be put on the vehicles to be scrapped. This is just Pink Batts on Wheels. For the scheme to work it would have to value second hand cars at approximately $4000 each, not the $2000 as it currently does. That would blow the cost for the Clunkers scheme out to approximately $800 million, not the $394 million that has been budgeted. Mr Swan said the cost wouldn’t blow out because the scheme is capped at 200,000 vehicles, but that doesn’t deal with the failure to correctly cost the scheme in the first place. The cap doesn’t matter; it is the actual cost per vehicle. He also said it wouldn’t blow out to the $1 billion estimated by Industry Minister Kim Carr because it wasn’t a stimulus package. But it works in exactly the same way as it would if it was a stimulus package. In fact in its policy document Ms Gillard specifically stated that “Similar measures have been introduced in countries such as the United States.”  The US scheme was a stimulus package and blew out in cost from $1bn to $3bn. And in the US, as with Australia, the scheme had to meet environmental standards. Mr Swan tried to fob off the fact that the scheme would blow out to at least $800 million by saying it had had been submitted to Treasury and Finance, but they are not charged with auditing the scheme, just whether there are offsets and in this case it is offset by stripping funds from Labor’s own environmental programmes. Whether you call it a stimulus package or an environmental package, or both, the scheme will become another “Pink Batts on Wheels.” It is yet another example of an ill-conceived Labor scheme that will double in cost from $394 million to $800 million. And this is yet another example of Labor’s waste and mismanagement. Media Contact: John Macgowan 0420 384 925 Andrew Robb Wed, 04 Aug 2010 02:46:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1149 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1148/Cash-for-Clunkers-1-Pink-Batts-on-Wheels.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1148 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1148&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1148/Cash-for-Clunkers-1-Pink-Batts-on-Wheels.aspx Labor’s cash for clunkers scheme will blow out to the estimated $1 billion that Minister Kim Carr, when earlier arguing against the scheme, said it would cost because the scheme underestimates the value that has to be put on the vehicles to be scrapped. The government says it will offer people a $2000 rebate on their pre 1995 trade in if they buy a new car from a select range of mostly imported vehicles. The government says this would encourage 200,000 to upgrade their cars over four years at a cost to taxpayers of $394 million. However, the Motor Traders Association of NSW estimates that the government would have to offer a minimum of $3000 per vehicle, according to respected online magazine www.goauto.com.au. In the same article on March 25 last year industry insiders said the price would have to be nearer $5000 to encourage people to trade their cars. Unless the price is set correctly people will be more likely to sell their car than scrap it. For example the 1986 Holden Commodores as quoted by Ms Gillard can sell privately for more than $2000 and often up to as much as $3500. Unless the government’s scrap price meets the trade in price then the scheme will fail or blow out in costs. Even averaging the difference would see the cost blow to $800 million. This gels with Mr Carr’s Industry Department’s assessment that the scheme would cost $1bn after accounting for administrative costs. Mr Carr said of the scheme to www.goauto.com.au that: “The difficulty is that it is extremely expensive and there are finite resources for government”. The cost of Ms Gillard’s ill conceived scheme has been massively underestimated. For it to operate the costs will have to double to $800 million. This scheme has all the hallmarks of the pink batt scheme and the BER. This is just another example of the waste and mismanagement that has characterised her government. Ms Gillard has form when it comes to managing these sorts of schemes. Even a cursory examination of the costs associated with the Cash for Clunkers scheme shows it will have to blow out if it is to meet its aims. It is a cost the economy can ill afford to bare. Media Contact: John Macgowan 0420 384 925 Andrew Robb Wed, 04 Aug 2010 02:32:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1148 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1147/Labor-Caught-Out-in-Central-Coast-Gas-Farce.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1147 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1147&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1147/Labor-Caught-Out-in-Central-Coast-Gas-Farce.aspx The new Julia Gillard claims she is in control of her election campaign – but is she in control of the Central Coast candidates installed by the faceless men of the NSW Labor Party? Labor candidate for Robertson Deb O'Neill and Labor MP for Dobell Craig Thomson have been caught out making misleading comments concerning the future of a controversial gas drilling project off the Central Coast. Yesterday they claimed the drilling was not going to go ahead – and claimed credit for this supposed victory over the company. This contradicts comments by the company, Advent – which stands by its statement to the ASX on 27 July that the project has merely been delayed. Advent’s statement makes it clear that it intends to begin drilling in the fourth quarter of 2010, having previously intended to start in July. As a publicly-listed company, Advent would be obliged to inform the ASX if the project was stopped.  Advent has made no such statement. In fact, a spokesman for the company confirmed today in ‘The Australian’ that, contrary to Labor’s claim, the drilling project will proceed. Will Julia Gillard demand her Labor colleagues retract their statements and be honest with the local community, when she visits the Central Coast today? Media Contact: John Macgowan 0420 384 925 Andrew Robb Wed, 04 Aug 2010 00:55:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1147 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1146/Health-Premiums-to-Rise-Due-to-Labors-300-Million-Medibank-Private-Raid.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1146 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1146&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1146/Health-Premiums-to-Rise-Due-to-Labors-300-Million-Medibank-Private-Raid.aspx The revelation that Labor intends to pillage Medibank Private confirms that Labor has no plans to end the waste, repay the debt and stop the reckless spending other than taxing, borrowing, and now raiding government instrumentalities. It’s the same tactic State Labor Governments have used to rip dividends out of their electricity and water authorities, forcing up electricity and water prices dramatically. Another three years of Federal Labor will see Australians pay a huge price in higher interest rates, higher taxes and now higher health insurance premiums. According to a leading health actuary, the 2 million members of Medibank Private will each be $195 worse off as a result of Labor stripping out its $300 million special dividend. Labor didn’t want to reveal the raid on Medibank Private before the election but were forced to do so because their finances are so tight they need the money to help pay for their election promises. So they slipped it out last thing on Monday evening, hidden amongst a mass of other detail, hoping no-one would notice. This is just the start of the price Australians will pay for Labor’s waste, debt and deficit. Media: Sam Fairlie-Cuninghame 0438 285 780 Andrew Robb Tue, 03 Aug 2010 23:51:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1146 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1143/Gillards-300-Million-Raid-on-Medibank-Private.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1143 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1143&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1143/Gillards-300-Million-Raid-on-Medibank-Private.aspx Julia Gillard is raiding Medibank Private to pay for her reckless spending spree – announcing she will order Medibank Private to make a one off dividend payment of $300 million to fund her latest round of irresponsible promises. Taking $300 million out of Medibank Private can only have one result – higher health insurance premiums for families. Labor is again adding to cost of living pressures. Once again, Labor just doesn’t get it. If ever there was a warning bell to Australians about the cost of another term of Labor, this raid of Medibank is it. It is a pivotal development in the campaign. Australians now have a real choice. We either live within our means, or we decide to go down Labor’s spend and tax, debt and deficit route. It is also a Federal Government demonstrating that is has caught the State Labor disease. Pillaging public infrastructure is exactly the template used by incompetent State Governments in NSW, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania to prop up their wasteful spending instead of maintaining their infrastructure properly. This is why electricity and water prices have sky rocketed – ten years of big dividends, but no renewal of the infrastructure. Media: Sam Fairlie-Cuninghame 0438 285 780 Andrew Robb Tue, 03 Aug 2010 07:13:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1143 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1144/Labors-Policy-on-the-Run.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1144 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1144&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1144/Labors-Policy-on-the-Run.aspx Julia Gillard’s announcement today is a response to her own political problems – not a response to the problems faced by Australian families. In fact, Ms Gillard said as much today: QUESTION: Prime Minister, I might be missing something, but you seem the same today to me as you did yesterday. Your campaign events are running a pretty similar course. So, how exactly are you going to be more real and are you worried it might just look like you're getting a bit desperate? JULIA GILLARD: Well, with the greatest of respect, I don't remember yesterday announcing a huge new investment in the nation's future, a transformation of school education, and a transformation of the Family Tax Benefit system. (Press conference, Emu Plains, 2 August 2010) The problem with making policy on the run for political objectives is that it creates anomalies. Ms Gillard expresses concern that “a sharp drop in family support can encourage teenagers to leave school early”. (Julia Gillard, press release, 2 August 2010) Yet under her scheme released today, which will not begin until 2012, students will go on a roll-coaster ride of financial support, which offers mixed messages about whether to stay in school. For example, a child who turns 15 this year, on the maximum benefit of $6,161 a year, will receive much less next year ($2,062) before going back to $6,161 in 2012. Then, when the child turns 19, the payment will fall again to $2,518. The encouragement to stay in school will be too late, and will create a roller coaster ride of uncertain financial support for students and their families. Labor has claimed that the funding will be fully offset. They need to explain exactly where the $668.5 million in cuts will be made. Media Contact: Sam Fairlie-Cuninghame on 0438 285 780 Andrew Robb Mon, 02 Aug 2010 07:16:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1144 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1145/Coalition-Response-to-Labors-Aged-Care-Costings-Accusations.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1145 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1145&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1145/Coalition-Response-to-Labors-Aged-Care-Costings-Accusations.aspx The Coalition rejects Labor’s claim, and we stand by our costings. Labor is clearly suffering from not having the Australian Public Service available to do all its intellectual work. In fact it is Labor that has made the error – or is attempting to deceive the public. Budget Paper No 3, page 51, Table 2.2.46 clearly shows the estimated payments to the states for this measure at $37.5m per year through to 2013-14. Labor’s claim only serves to confirm that they are planning to cut to this measure from 1 July 2012. The Coalition has announced over $24 billion of recurrent savings to fund our election commitments. In contrast, Labor has only identified a handful of specific savings measures. Labor has also failed to identify exactly where in the Budget it plans to get the money to pay for almost all of its promises. Media Contact: Sam Fairlie-Cuningham 0438 285 780 Andrew Robb Sun, 01 Aug 2010 07:22:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1145 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1139/Radio-Interview-with-Lyndal-Curtis-on-ABC-AM.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1139 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1139&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1139/Radio-Interview-with-Lyndal-Curtis-on-ABC-AM.aspx TONY EASTLEY: For more on the story we're now joined by our chief political correspondent, Lyndal Curtis. Lyndal, good morning, how damaging is this for the Labor Party? LYNDAL CURTIS: Well it is damaging because it raises questions about Julia Gillard's support for the two policies and what has been leaked paints her as someone who argued the politics, who argued the case that voters, some voters wouldn't back the schemes that Labor was putting up. We don't know what else she said, she is on the record arguing the case in favour of paid parental leave before the Cabinet decision but the way the Cabinet's supposed to work is that minister's argue their cases, argue their points inside the Cabinet and that doesn't leak. The fact that it has leaked is damaging, is probably more damaging for the Labor Party, more worrying for the Labor Party that someone in the party is leaking against the Government at such a sensitive time. TONY EASTLEY: And it certainly derailed their messages of yesterday. LYNDAL CURTIS: Yes it certainly did, it happened at a time when the Coalition appeared to have changed its own policy on paid parental leave to, to give, give the money not just at, not at the primary carer's wage, which is what the policy said but at the mother's wage if the father's wage was higher and the father decided to take the full time off then he would be paid at the lower wage. The Government also wanted to argue that the Opposition's Paid Parental Leave Scheme funded by a rise in the company tax would hurt prices but those were certainly derailed that its messages were hampered by the fact that this leak occurred. TONY EASTLEY: And it is of course Lyndal worth pointing out this is, I think, what the third internal Labor leak in as many weeks. The Opposition must be making hay. LYNDAL CURTIS: They certainly are and, and they’re questioning not only Julia Gillard's commitment to paid parental leave and to the pensions rise, but the Opposition is saying the fact that senior sources are leaking inside the Government shows that there is a high level of instability for the Government. The Coalition's campaign spokesman is the shadow finance minister Andrew Robb and I spoke to him a short time ago. ANDREW ROBB: Well look I think Australian's already concerned with Julia Gillard's role in the assassination of a first term prime minister, but these allegations go to policy. Did, did, did Julia Gillard oppose support for families, did she oppose support for seniors? People need to know where she stands, I don't think people have an understanding of what she really believes in and if she wants to be prime minister, or elected for the first time in three and a half weeks, the Prime Minister needs to confirm whether or not she did oppose support for families, whether or not she did oppose support for seniors. LYNDAL CURTIS: Have you ever raised an issue in shadow Cabinet where you've disagreed with the proposition being put or raised potential political problems about the proposition being put? ANDREW ROBB: Look this is not the point, of course there's an act of debate in every Cabinet and shadow Cabinet, but the point of the issue is, one, there are serious leaks in the middle of a campaign. The Gillard Government is now racked by payback and vendetta, this goes to stability. Here's a Government that has lost all discipline. LYNDAL CURTIS: But Julia Gillard doesn't have to answer for the leaks does she, that'd be someone else? ANDREW ROBB: No well it's her Government, it's her Government. Clearly these leaks were at the most senior level, the most senior level. We've got a Prime Minister who is standing behind policy she doesn't appear to support; she needs to confirm for people what she stands for. No one knows where she would take this country and this issue is of great moment. LYNDAL CURTIS: You say that she's standing behind policy she doesn't appear to support but isn't that how the Cabinet process works and the shadow Cabinet works, that ministers or shadow ministers argue their case in the Cabinet and then they stand the behind the decision? ANDREW ROBB: But this, this is a, this is a person who's now standing to be elected for the first time as prime minister, she owes it to the population, to the voters to show what's in her heart, what she believes in. LYNDAL CURTIS: Should Tony Abbott have to then say where he had views that disagreed with the final decision in both the times he was in Cabinet and the times he's been in shadow Cabinet? ANDREW ROBB: This is not an issue of process within Cabinet, this is an issue about what does Julia Gillard believe in. Tony Abbott has written a book about what he believes in; he is an open book, what you see is what you get. The thing is that Julia Gillard has never been prominent on some of these issues. We don't know what her beliefs are, the people of Australia need to understand what Julia Gillard believes in before they can properly vote for her at the forthcoming election. TONY EASTLEY: Campaign spokesman and Coalition frontbencher Andrew Robb. Andrew Robb Wed, 28 Jul 2010 03:52:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1139 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1138/Radio-Interview-with-Lyndal-Curtis-on-ABC-AM.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1138 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1138&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1138/Radio-Interview-with-Lyndal-Curtis-on-ABC-AM.aspx TONY EASTLEY: The question of the economy has moved back to centre stage in the election campaign. The Government is maintaining the Coalition's rise in company tax, to pay for its Paid Parental Leave Scheme, would force up prices, and it says it has economic modelling to prove its case. Chief political correspondent Lyndal Curtis joins us this morning. Lyndal, good morning. The Government's trying to mount a campaign that it’s the Coalition that is the big taxing party? LYNDAL CURTIS: Yes after it had to suffer campaigns not only against its emissions trading scheme but also mining tax with the Coalition mouthing the words 'great, big new tax' at every available opportunity, the Government's now trying to do the same thing. It's not using the phrase 'great, big new tax' but it's calling the Coalition's company tax rise which would pay for its more generous Paid Parental Leave Scheme, a 'Coles and Woolies tax' and it has modelling from KPMG that shows that the impact of the tax would force up prices by about half a per cent. Now this is a tax that would apply to some of the biggest companies that do include those major chains, like Coles and Woolworths, and the modelling shows that prices on things such as food and clothing and housing would go up by half a per cent. So the Government's trying to use a tactic the Opposition used against it. TONY EASTLEY: While the Government, of course, is trying to mount this campaign the Prime Minister has had her own problems with tax this morning? LYNDAL CURTIS: Yes, she certainly has. She was interviewed on Sydney radio station 2GB and the interviewer, Alan Jones, pressed her on when the company tax cut that she proposes under the mining tax would come in. Now under the mining tax, company tax will be cut to 29 per cent from 2013-14, but for smaller business they'll get the cut a year earlier from 2012-13, but she's had some trouble with it on three separate occasions. She tried to get the date right and this is how she said it. ALAN JONES: When will it go to 29 cents in the dollar? JULIA GILLARD: Alan, just one second, I'm describing it to you. ALAN JONES: No, I don't need the description I just want to know when it will go to 29 cents in the dollar and when will it go to 28 cents in the dollar? JULIA GILLARD: It'll go to 29 cents in the dollar in 2012 and then it, what we've said… ALAN JONES: No it won't. JULIA GILLARD: What do you mean? ALAN JONES: I'll tell you, I'll answer the question for you so that we can get onto something else. Your Budget papers say, quote “taxing mining super profits fairly, through the resource super profits tax means we can afford to cut the company tax rate at two stages to 29 per cent in 2013-14 and 28 per cent in 2014-15.” JULIA GILLARD: When we've got the details, worked through the Argus process we will legislate. ALAN JONES: So what Mr Swan said... ALAN JONES: in the Budget it's not correct? JULIA GILLARD: Then companies can look forward to a reduction in the company tax rate and you are right to say the 29 per cent is in 2013-14. I have the better economic plan. A better economic plan gets us to surplus in 2013. A better economic plan that does reduce the company tax rate Alan, and you’re interested in that, does reduce it for small business starting in 2012. TONY EASTLEY: The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard speaking to Alan Jones on Macquarie Radio this morning. Lyndal Curtis, the Opposition is apparently facing its own troubles. LYNDAL CURTIS: Yes, again with the Paid Parental Leave Scheme there's a story today in the Daily Telegraph that the Opposition would pay fathers at the mother's full wage. Now the scheme that the Opposition has proposed would pay a mother at her full wage for 18 weeks, but it's saying that that's too expensive to pay fathers at the same rate. So if they opted to take the time off it would be paid at the mother's wage. We've been joined on the phone by the Coalition’s finance Spokesman, Andrew Robb. Andrew Robb welcome to 'AM.' ANDREW ROBB: Good morning Lyndal, thank you. LYNDAL CURTIS: Is that true that you would not pay fathers at their full wage if they opted to take the leave under the Paid Parental Leave Scheme? ANDREW ROBB: Well the scheme as proposed would entitle men to, the father to take two weeks leave, if they chose, at his wage, but if the father decides to take more of the leave and the mother goes back to work, more of the 26 weeks then that would be paid at the mother's wage. LYNDAL CURTIS: Why are you doing that? ANDREW ROBB: Well the purpose of the scheme is to allow the mothers to be at home with their baby, that's the principle purpose, now if there's a difficult birth or other factors and the father wants to stay home at the same time there's an entitlement of two weeks at his wage, but if he decides to stay longer then, well prudent financial management we decided that it should be at the mother's wage because that is the purpose of the scheme, to allow mothers to have that six months with their baby and to also give them the opportunity to do that but at the same time continue with their career. This scheme is a productivity measure, it is a critical productivity measure at a time when we've got huge numbers of, increased numbers of seniors, people going into retirement, we need to harness, as a community the best talents and the best skills that we've got available. And there are hundreds of thousands of women who would love to have babies but would also like to continue their career and this paid parental scheme is a work entitlement, it's not a welfare measure, and it's designed to ensure that the training and the skills and the talents and the expense that's been put into developing these wonderful talents across so many women can be retained in the workforce to the benefit of the whole community. LYNDAL CURTIS: But what if a family decides that it's the father that wants to stay home for the bulk of that period, aren't you forcing them to make a different decision? ANDREW ROBB: Well again we've got to look at the purpose of the scheme. It's to allow the mothers to bond with their baby and to have the opportunity to spend six months, that critical six months, after their birth to be with their child. Now if the man…. LYNDAL CURTIS: But can't fathers bond with their baby as well? ANDREW ROBB: Yes but it is designed primarily for the mothers and if the father wishes to he will receive the same wage as the mother, as the mother was on. Now if you look at Labor's scheme they pay the mum and dad the same amount of money because it's on the basic wage, the minimum wage, our scheme pays mum and dads the same money but we pay them a lot more money. LYNDAL CURTIS: What happens if the mother earns more than the father? ANDREW ROBB: Well the mother, it's paid at the mother's wage but on, but in balance, across the average of men and women, men do, at this stage, typically earn more money than their wives. LYNDAL CURTIS: So it's not at the lower income, it would be at the mother's wage if the mother earns more? ANDREW ROBB: … the mothers wage because the scheme is designed primarily to allow the mother to be at home with their child. LYNDAL CURTIS: On the question of your company tax hike, which will pay for this scheme, won't that force up prices? ANDREW ROBB: Look, the Labor Party, the Government, the gall of the Government on this issue is breathtaking. Here's a Government that in three years has presided over 35 per cent increase in electricity prices, a 24 per cent increase in gas prices, 29 per cent increase in water prices, 11 per cent in bread, 15 per cent on rent, and it goes on….. LYNDAL CURTIS: But won't your company tax hike mean the prices keep rising? ANDREW ROBB: Well the Government are implying that… we've got a temporary levy that as soon as we get this financial situation that Labor has put us into where we're borrowing $100 million a day as a community and will do so for years because of their reckless spending. When we get on top of that reckless spending and that debt the temporary levy on the paid parental leave will go and it will be, it will be absorbed into general taxation. LYNDAL CURTIS: But will in the interim….. ANDREW ROBB: Productivity measure... In the interim this scheme is, compared with the Government's taxing of alcopops, of cigarettes, the mining tax alone is four times larger than the temporary levy we're talking about. The mining tax will feed massively into the price of coal which provides, for instance in New South Wales, 90 per cent of the electricity and that, that's going to, that $10 billion mining tax is going to significantly increase the price of every item across the country because it's going to feed directly into electricity prices. So… LYNDAL CURTIS: But won't your tax also feed into prices? Isn't that just the reality that companies will pass the tax hike on? ANDREW ROBB: It, it's minuscule compared with the tax situation of the Government. It's a temporary levy it's probably 20 cents in a hundred dollar bill of groceries. The thing is that for many of these companies and again we're only taxing 3,000 companies out of hundreds of thousands of companies in Australia. We're only taxing the 3,000 most wealthiest, most of these firms already have some form of paid parental leave, for instance Woolworths has an extensive paid parental leave scheme. So in part this levy, this temporary levy will substitute for the cost of the paid parental leave that many of these companies already have in place. And it is a temporary levy, it is a productivity measure, a significant productivity measure and unlike the Labor's scheme with a tax immediately, but you know, the reforms are off in the never never. The Prime Minister this morning couldn't even remember, it's so far away, the tax cut for companies that she couldn't even remember when it started. The 28 cents is not even occurring for five years in the future. So, you know their scheme is on the never never, our scheme is up-front, a temporary levy, it's quite minuscule compared with the taxes that are being lumbered and, of course, on top of all that, the Government has still got the prospect of a carbon tax, it's still their policy. If Labor get back in with the Greens controlling the Senate, mark my words there will be a carbon tax which will massively increase the price of all products for ever… LYNDAL CURTIS: Andrew… ANDREW ROBB: Their tax is permanent, our tax is temporary. LYNDAL CURTIS: Andrew Robb thank you very much for your time. ANDREW ROBB: Thanks Lyndal. TONY EASTLEY: The shadow minister for finance, Andrew Robb, speaking there with Lyndal Curtis. Andrew Robb Tue, 27 Jul 2010 01:19:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1138 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1137/Coalition-Will-Use-Cash-for-Clunkers-394-Million-to-Help-Pay-Off-Labors-Debt.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1137 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1137&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1137/Coalition-Will-Use-Cash-for-Clunkers-394-Million-to-Help-Pay-Off-Labors-Debt.aspx The Coalition will use the $394 million Labor has allocated to its ill-conceived ‘cash for clunkers’ program, which will be open to rorting, to help pay-off the Gillard Government’s $90 billion in net debt. Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction Andrew Robb said the Coalition was “absolutely committed” to paying off Labor’s debt as soon as possible, if elected. “Labor’s reckless spending is continuing unabated and this joke of a program will result in further wasteful spending and the distortion of both the new and used car markets,” Mr Robb said. “This program will inevitably result in the price of pre-1995 used cars going up by $2,000, making it even more difficult for people on tight budgets to buy a cheap car. It will price people, such as students, out of the market. “Consequently, a Coalition Government would not proceed with Labor’s Cleaner Car Rebate program, ‘cash for clunkers’, and will instead use this $394 million to help retire debt. “Labor’s debt, continued reckless spending and borrowing, at a rate of $100 million a day, is putting upward pressure on the daily cost of living of every Australian,” Mr Robb said. Media Contact: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:05:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1137 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1140/Superannuation-Info-on-Employee-Pay-Slips-Not-Something-New-as-Labor-Pretends.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1140 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1140&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1140/Superannuation-Info-on-Employee-Pay-Slips-Not-Something-New-as-Labor-Pretends.aspx Labor has been caught out once again re-announcing existing policy and dressing it up as new. Shadow Finance spokesman Andrew Robb said a Labor media release issued today on the ‘Protecting workers' entitlements package’ by Julia Gillard and three other Ministers stated: ‘.....the Gillard Labor Government will take strong action to make sure that these employers do the right thing. Employees will receive information on their pay slips about the amount of superannuation actually paid into their accounts.....’ However, the regulations made under the Fair Work Act already require this to be done. Regulation 3.46 states: 3.46 (5) If the employer is required to make superannuation contributions for the benefit of the employee, the pay slip must also include: (a) the amount of each contribution that the employer made during the period to which the pay slip relates, and the name, or the name and number, of any fund to which the contribution was made; or (b) the amounts of contributions that the employer is liable to make in relation to the period to which the pay slip relates, and the name, or the name and number, of any fund to which the contributions will be made. (Fair Work Regulations, Chapter 3, Part 3-6, Division 3, Regulation 3.46 (5)) Mr Robb said this was the third day in four that the Labor Party had put out “all talk, no action” policies – others being the citizens’ assembly and cash for clunkers. “The cash for clunkers policy will increase the price of old cars to a minimum of $2,000, making it much harder for young people and those less well-off to buy a car. “They call this strong action, it’s a joke”, Mr Robb said. The fact that Julia Gillard has tried to pass off existing policy as new policy shows that the Gillard Government is just as addicted to spin as the Rudd Government was. Media Contact: Jim Bonner on 03 8616 5100 or 0429 426 682 Andrew Robb Mon, 26 Jul 2010 02:30:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1140 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1136/Interview-with-Fran-Kelly-Radio-National-Breakfast.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1136 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1136&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1136/Interview-with-Fran-Kelly-Radio-National-Breakfast.aspx Topics: Coalition’s expansion of the education rebate, Labor’s reckless spending. E&OE FRAN KELLY: Andrew Robb is the Shadow Finance Minister therefore he’s the man in charge of the Coalition’s books. He joins us now from his campaign HQ in his electorate of Goldstein, Andrew, good morning. ANDREW ROBB: Yes, good morning Fran, how are you? FRAN KELLY: I’m very well, thank you. Do you have the numbers wrong? ANDREW ROBB: No we don’t. No we do not at all. Look, this is Hawker Britton 101. Labor’s default position seems to be to question our costings, drop it late in the day to muddy the water, then, you know, sneak away from scrutiny. Simon Crean last night after making a big man of himself in front of the cameras late in the afternoon, he committed to going on radio last night to defend their criticisms but then went into hiding. No one could find him. FRAN KELLY: Well I don’t know about that, that’s certainly been, there’s been a few statements from Labor floating there and about, but I mean to be fair both sides are accusing the other of getting their numbers wrong, the question from Labor is, is your $760 million program, predicated on the same take up rate as the current take up of the school rebate ... ANDREW ROBB: It absolutely is. The Government needs to explain how eight days ago, the Prime Minister Julia Gillard, used 2.7 million students as eligible for the education tax rebate when costing their policy, yet yesterday in trying to discredit our costings they said there were 2.1 million eligible students. Now there’s only 600,000 difference in the space of eight days, we used the Prime Minister’s number which she had also used back in January. FRAN KELLY: 2.7 million? ANDREW ROBB: That’s right 2.7. Now either Mr Swan is incompetent or deceitful or both. FRAN KELLY: What about the argument Andrew Robb that even if you are predicating it on the same numbers as the Government, the likelihood is that given your promise is more extensive for instance school fees can be claimed then more people are going to take up this rebate because that’s a fantastic offer. There are more people going to use it. FRAN KELLY: Very good point, very good point Fran, so as a consequence we increased the percentage of uptake from the Government’s current percentage of 65 per cent to 80 per cent. So we made full allowance, in fact, more than full allowance in my view for that. FRAN KELLY: So 15 per cent more on top of that 2.7million? ANDREW ROBB: In terms of the maximum claim that could be made and we actually increased the number of people that would take up any claim by 15 per cent because our policy is more attractive. And I think… FRAN KELLY: Okay, so that’s the numbers. You’ve added more students, potential student claims to the number, not just 2.7, you’ve increased that? ANDREW ROBB: We’ve added tens of tens of thousands more to it and we’ve increased by 15 per cent the likely claim by any one family for their child. FRAN KELLY: Okay. ANDREW ROBB: So, on both counts we’ve made very very generous assumptions of increases. We’ve used the numbers that were used by the Prime Minister eight days ago to explain hers. They’ve come out without any real justification. They’ve used different numbers that have not been in the public arena. And we see today Tim Colebatch from The Age, who is an expert in this area, has gone into great detail about comparing the two schemes and said the Coalition’s plan is clearly better, clearly better. FRAN KELLY: Alright, well I guess that’s for the voters to judge. But the point is you will submit this policy I presume to the Treasurer for the charter of budget honesty. When will you put those figures in? ANDREW ROBB: We have said this, Fran we have said this endlessly, that we will submit. We will be submitting the first batch later next week, after our own independent accounting firm has considered them and checked them. The first tranche of costings will go in later next week… FRAN KELLY: Including this one? ANDREW ROBB: … And we have, we have said, we have said that we will consistently submit every one of our costings and not like the Labor Party.  The Labor Party are out there trailing their coat on this issue. You must recall that last time they submitted all of their policies for costing at 12.35 on the Friday before the election. Now they’ve got the gall to start to suggest that we’re not going to follow proper procedure. On every count they’ve challenged our numbers. They’re talking about black holes. They’ve got a $40 billion deficit predicted for this year. That’s a black hole, that’s going to cause the Australian population more taxes, more borrowing. FRAN KELLY: Sure, sure, sure, sure, I want to bring you back though, because time is tight. ANDREW ROBB: This is relevant Fran. They’re accusing us of black holes… FRAN KELLY: That’s a black hole caused by the global financial crisis. ANDREW ROBB: No it’s not. It’s caused by the reckless spending of this Labor party, unnecessary and reckless spending and the waste and mismanagement. That’s what it’s caused by. FRAN KELLY: Okay, well talking of black holes, okay there’s been Government attacks too on what you’ve claimed as savings. You say $46 billion in savings is what the Coalition has found. Now there are question marks over some of that because you count in cancelling the broadband network and also the sale of Medibank Private savings. There are questions marks over all of that. But the point is… ANDREW ROBB: Sorry Fran, can I just, on that, it’s a very important point, from day one when we came out with $46 billion worth of savings people were dismissing the $18 billion because it’s a capital saving. Because if we don’t go ahead with a version of the broadband network and borrowing $43 billion or $18 billion in the next three years they’re saying well that’s not a saving. Well I’ll put it to you, if you’ve got a 25 per cent discount on a $40,000 new kitchen, a capital expenditure, you would save $10,000. Now that happens to be real money. FRAN KELLY: Yeah but it’s not an $18 billion saving. Look we must move on. ANDREW ROBB: Sorry Fran, the next three years, the Labor party have committed to borrowing $18 billion to do the first part of their broadband network. If we don’t borrow that $18 billion that is a direct saving to the debt that this country will incur. FRAN KELLY: Alright well, what I’m interested in is the money that you do have at your disposal to spend. There are various estimates of it, around the $6 billion mark, will that money be used, be spent on election promises, how much of it to be used to retire debt? ANDREW ROBB: Well, what we have said is that these savings we will in some cases use the savings, by scrapping certain Government programs, to replace them with better programs. FRAN KELLY: Yes, but will you spend all that money? ANDREW ROBB: No we won’t. No, we’ve said we’ll do both, we’ve said how this Government could and should reduce the debt either with recurrent savings which means you borrow less or with capital savings which means you pay off debt. In both cases, you’re reducing the debt burden that is hanging now around the neck of Australians and is putting enormous pressure on interest rates. Six interest rate rises in a row, much of it due to the reckless spending which is added to the debt at the rate of $700 million a week. That’s a new hospital a week we’re borrowing as a country. This is going to go on for two years, every week for two years, $700 million a week. FRAN KELLY: Andrew Robb, thank you very much for joining us, I’m sure we’ll be talking again about the figures during this campaign. Thank you. ANDREW ROBB: Thanks very much Fran. Further information: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Fri, 23 Jul 2010 01:35:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1136 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1135/Interview-with-The-World-Today.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1135 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1135&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1135/Interview-with-The-World-Today.aspx ELEANOR HALL: Business leaders have been more vocal today in expressing their concerns about the Prime Minister's push for a sustainable population. Opinion polls suggest that swinging voters in marginal seats in Queensland and New South Wales are scared about an increasing population. But those running businesses, particularly in industries facing skills shortages, are asking whether Australia can sustain economic growth without a growing population. From Canberra, Brendan Trembath reports. BRENDAN TREMBATH: As Australia's population tops 22 million there are more people on the roads, making the drive to work in the biggest cities a slow one. This was the radio traffic report in Melbourne this morning. TRAFFIC REPORTER: Airport to West Gate stop start all the way, second gear grind, pretty much from Brunswick Road and over the Bolte. BRENDAN TREMBATH: Most Australians live in the state and territory capitals. The Opposition's finance spokesman Andrew Robb says the Coalition supports sustainable population growth. ANDREW ROBB: It is a fact of life that there hasn't been the planning done to accommodate the massive increases in immigration that we've had in the last few years. BRENDAN TREMBATH: He argues the Coalition would manage population pressure better. ANDREW ROBB: We need to have made some plans as to where they'll go, how we can accommodate them so we don't end up with the traffic report that you just had. BRENDAN TREMBATH: Andrew Robb has told ABC local radio's Jon Faine thought that though that some growth is good. ANDREW ROBB: We are for growth. JON FAINE: No you're not. Tony Abbott, Julia Gillard you're both running around the countryside saying we don't want too much growth. Australia's already pretty much at capacity, which is just plain nonsense. ANDREW ROBB: No. That's… JON FAINE: Its scaremongering and pandering to the lowest common denominator. BRENDAN TREMBATH: Western Sydney is one of the biggest industrial areas in Australia. NARELLE STOKER: There's a lot of semi-skilled factory work, metal fabrication and manufacturing in that area. So they want to employ local people that can actually get to work locally rather than having to transfer to the city to get there. BRENDAN TREMBATH: Narelle Stoker is the general manager of the Cumberland Business Chamber. NARELLE STOKER: In the area that we're in, the infrastructure is lacking OK, the roads, the transport, even the housing requirements are really low. So you're already at maximum. To bring more people into the area with the lack of infrastructure is putting us probably backwards. BRENDAN TREMBATH: Not moving forwards as the Prime Minister Julia Gillard like to say. She also says she supports sustainable population growth. And she's tried to empathise with people in crowded parts of the country. JULIA GILLARD: I suspect they would say things like I'm spending more time on the road and less time with the kids. I think they would say things like I'm spending more time waiting at the medical centre and less time at the dinner table. BRENDAN TREMBATH: There's more to consider though than the standard of living in the big cities. Australia's thriving resources industry is crying out for more workers. John Nicolaou is the chief economist at the West Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. JOHN NICOLAOU: CCI has recently done some economic modelling around the current and future labour needs of this state and we expect that this state alone will need an extra 500,000 workers throughout all industry sectors, but certainly mining and construction will be dominant sectors in terms of labour demand. But on the basis of current population growth and policy settings we're going to fall over 200,000 workers short of that mark. So that does, by the end of year 10 - so 2020, so that does signify the importance of this issue from this state's perspective and really it's an issue of national importance as well. BRENDAN TREMBATH: A labour shortage in the west, but crowded cities in the east. It highlights Australia's population paradox. ELEANOR HALL: Brendan Trembath reporting. Andrew Robb Wed, 21 Jul 2010 06:28:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1135 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1134/Interview-with-Marius-Benson-News-Radio.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1134 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1134&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1134/Interview-with-Marius-Benson-News-Radio.aspx Subjects: Labor pretending to be fiscal conservatives before elections, Kevin Rudd’s political execution, election timing. E&OE MARIUS BENSON: Andrew Robb, to begin with the financial aspect of Julia Gillard’s press club address yesterday, she has basically been trying to out conservative the conservatives, she said there will be no campaign hand-outs, all the spending by the Government will be off-set by savings, there will be unpopular cutbacks and the Government’s financial approach she describes as clean, green and above all, lean, you would back that? ANDREW ROBB: The issues are, who can trust them, really.  It seems like, not only at a Federal level but a state level Labor always pretend to be Liberals before an election and they revert to big spending Labor after an election and I think we are seeing the same thing again.  MARIUS BENSON: Ok, Julia Gillard’s speech yesterday was on the economy but the coverage of the speech has been dominated by the revelations or reports of a deal or negotiation she conducted with Kevin Rudd on the Wednesday night which saw him deposed and she installed as the Prime Minister.  The reports suggest at once stage Kevin Rudd said ‘give me a little while and see if I get better’ and she went off to consider that with her camp and came back and said no deal. That doesn’t seem terribly treacherous by the treacherous levels of leadership deals we have seen in Australia does it? ANDREW ROBB: We’re not sure, I am not sure, in any way what happened that night.  I suppose it’s been our sense that Kevin Rudd was elected by the Australian people and he did deserve the opportunity to be judged by the Australian people and not be brutally executed by a number of faceless men.  It does sound like the faceless men intervened again that night. MARIUS BENSON: So, just on that point that has been made by several Coalition people about the Prime Minister as elected by the people and should face the people; the Liberal Party, if you know a bit of Liberal Party history, John Gorton got knifed while he was Prime Minister and was not allowed to return to face the people. ANDREW ROBB: Well the difference with contests on the Liberal side over the years and previously within Labor in many cases and in decades gone past, the caucus doesn’t really make the decision, the members of parliament who have been elected have not made the decision and if they had made the decision it would be a different matter.  It was the faceless men who made the decision and I think it would be none of those people who made the decision that anyone in the country could name. MARIUS BENSON: Of course Julia Gillard got the Leadership without a vote because the numbers were so overwhelmingly in her favour.  Caucus didn’t even need to vote. ANDREW ROBB: Well if they had needed to vote, caucus would have been instructed on what they had to do.  The instructions had already gone out from the factional heavies and from the union chiefs. MARIUS BENSON: There’s divided opinion in the papers today about whether this revelation yesterday about the leadership machinations makes an early election more or less likely.  What do you think on that and when do you think the election will be? ANDREW ROBB: Well I don’t know how this will play out.  I think Julia Gillard was absolutely determined along with those who instruct her, the factional heavies, absolutely determined to go to an early election.  Everything they have done in the last two or three weeks has indicated that.  The trouble is that everything they have done has been so poorly executed that it has left very huge question marks over Julia Gillard’s ability and the fact that Labor hasn’t changed its spots in any sense. So I think it will raise question marks for them but if they do go early it’s just another example of the Labor movement and Labor Government treating the electorate with disregard, because Julia Gillard needs to spend some time to show what her ability is and not look to surf in on the honeymoon that she otherwise expected. Andrew Robb Fri, 16 Jul 2010 01:54:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1134 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1133/Dodgy-Figures-Dodgy-Tax-Dodgy-Deal.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1133 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1133&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1133/Dodgy-Figures-Dodgy-Tax-Dodgy-Deal.aspx Today we have seen dodgy figures, used to explain a dodgy tax, delivered via a dodgy deal. Treasurer Wayne Swan’s unprecedented release of revised Budget and economic forecasts is an admission of economic and financial ineptness. This statement comes barely two months after the May Budget, and only two weeks into the financial year.  This is an emergency mini-budget to solve a political emergency and it fails. It is no more than another attempted political fix, designed to get the Gillard Government through an election. Today’s release reveals the gross dishonesty in the Government’s assertion that the new MRRT deal would only cost the budget $1.5bn in revenue.  Treasurer Swan has now admitted that the changes to the tax reduce estimated revenue by $7.5bn. He then nets this against a $6bn increase in resource revenues arising from a massive upgrade to commodity price forecasts.  The MRRT deal was a political fix involving a huge back down by a panicked and desperate Government.  The original RSPT was a bad tax and the new hastily conceived MRRT is a bad tax. The massive debt and deficit remains largely unchanged, the reckless spending will continue unabated and the forecast of a surplus is still simply not believable. This latest exercise in manipulation shows again the true colours of this deceitful Government. Only a Coalition Government can restore stability and financial integrity. Media contacts: Lisa Chikarovski on 0428 407 475 (Joe Hockey) or Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 (Andrew Robb) Andrew Robb Wed, 14 Jul 2010 07:40:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1133 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1132/Interview-with-Fran-Kelly-Radio-National-Breakfast.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1132 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1132&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1132/Interview-with-Fran-Kelly-Radio-National-Breakfast.aspx Topics: Labor’s dubious budget numbers, Federal Election timing, Coalition’s preparedness. E&OE FRAN KELLY: Andrew Robb is the Shadow Finance Minister and he joins us now. Andrew Robb welcome back to breakfast. ANDREW ROBB: Good Morning Fran. Thank you. FRAN KELLY: It looks as though the Treasurer will give you the figures you’re after today on the mining tax. Are you happy to suspend your suspicions until then? ANDREW ROBB: I wouldn’t hold your breath about getting something that’s going to be convincing or really provide answers to lots of questions. You know, we’ve spent now several weeks since they’ve finalised this tax and it’s just been a bunch of spin, no detail, Treasurer’s gone into hiding for two weeks to I think avoid the scrutiny. Clearly from what we can see, it is a sham, the estimated revenue, the head of BHP yesterday basically confirming that they will pay little more than $300 million in the first two years per year. Well that means the prospect of getting $10.5 billion is just not on. I mean they’d be lucky to get a billion dollars out of tax from this new tax which puts a great big cloud over the whole forecasts, the suggestion that they will get into surplus. So let’s see what they’ve got to say today, but you know it is two weeks into the new financial year and they’re already changing the numbers. This is amateur hour stuff. FRAN KELLY: Well they’re going to be releasing a Treasury update at some point during the election campaign anyway. They have to, don’t they? ANDREW ROBB: Well they do, but you know, here we are at a major review of numbers. You just can’t believe it. We said back at the time of the budget that this was a house of cards this budget. And now we’ve got what I would think would be close to a $10 billion hole as far as the mining tax is concerned. People just cannot believe Wayne Swan anymore. I mean, it’s getting to a farcical situation where we’ll have three sets of estimates in the space of seven or eight weeks. FRAN KELLY: If it is a $10 billion black hole and I’m not suggesting it is, I mean the Government will release the figures and I guess everyone will pore over them to make of them what they will. But you’re obviously suggesting that the Government will make these figures up basically so they have a good story to tell in the run up to an election. Would you then not use that $10 billion which you think is phony, is a sham, for your costing in your election promises? ANDREW ROBB: Well, whatever they do come up with, we will have to measure our budgets against that. FRAN KELLY: But you don’t believe it. ANDREW ROBB: We haven’t got the capability Fran to make these forecasts. But what they have got is growth assumptions for tax revenue for a 12 per cent increase this year and then 11 per cent on top of that the following year and eight per cent on top of that the year after. Now this is in the midst of really black clouds starting to emerge out of Europe, the US economy still stalling. Anybody who has got any experience in the world trade and global market is telling us that there’s a very real prospect, very real prospect of some sort of double dip, perhaps within 18 months or two years. Now these budget forecasts and I’ll bet the revised ones, which sound like they’re going to give an even better result, they’re just heroic assumptions. You cannot believe them. FRAN KELLY: Well on that face and if the black economic clouds are gathering and these are going to be heroic assumptions we get from the Treasurer today, will the Coalition be restrained in your election spending, in your promising? Will you be responsible and say we don’t believe this is the outlook so we’re not going to make these pledges? ANDREW ROBB: Well any improvement in the numbers today should go to the bottom line. They should pay off Labor’s, or start to pay off Labor’s hundred billion dollar debt. They should go against the deficit and go towards reducing the debt in due course. Now if there are improvements in numbers today, that’s what we will do with those numbers, I bet it’s not what will happen though with the Government. They will use that. They’ve already spent the mining tax and there’ no one who believes that the revenue now from the mining tax would go anywhere near $10 billion, yet Labor’s already spent that, not only in the forward estimates but beyond. FRAN KELLY: Okay well I guess we’ll wait to see what Wayne Swan gives us on that today. But talking of elections and you’ve had a bit to do with elections in the past, you’re a former Federal Director of the Liberal Party. We’re all talking about election timing. What do you think the Prime Minister should do? Should she go straight to the polls to get a mandate from the people that she doesn’t yet have as Tony Abbott keeps pointing out? Or should she hold off and fix up the problems that you keep pointing out that the Government has with the mining tax, with her offshore processing proposal? What’s your view? ANDREW ROBB: If Julia Gillard runs off to the polls it will convince people that the change of leadership was no more than a political fix to get them through an election and not an attempt to change the direction and the policy making process of this Government. So if we see something called this week or next week or in the next three or four weeks, what the Government is really confirming is that they take the community as idiots and that they have put Julia Gillard in there purely as a political fix, to get a honeymoon, to be the first woman Prime Minister, and to surf in on a wave of interest in a new Prime Minister and not put someone in there who will actually tackle some of the very serious problems none of which have been dealt with in the first three years of the Labor Government. FRAN KELLY: Isn’t there value though in her going and asking the people to endorse her? I mean wouldn’t you prefer that you get the chance for the electorate to judge whether they prefer Tony Abbott or Julia Gillard. They haven’t voted for either of them. ANDREW ROBB: We would prefer that the people made a judgement on the competence of the new prime minister, not on the fascination of someone who happens to be our first woman prime minister. It’s in the interest of the nation. Let’s approach elections and policy making in the interest of the nation, not in the interest of the Labor Party. FRAN KELLY: Well talking about confidence, how ready is the Coalition? Because it does seem incredible that the Liberal Party is still yet to pre-select candidates in two outer western Sydney seats, Parramatta and Greenway and last night picked the candidate for Lindsay, as a former Party Director you’d be appalled at this. ANDREW ROBB: Well we are well prepared around the country. FRAN KELLY: Except you don’t have all your candidates. ANDREW ROBB: There’s always a situation with a seat or two on both sides of politics, often for local reasons. They may not have been pre-selected or you’ve changed candidates in mid- course because you’ve decided that they’re just not up to it. So there are all these sorts of issues. But overwhelmingly around the country we’ve had people in place for many months, sometimes over 12 months, working very strongly and we are well prepared. And on that basis we are ready to provide an alternative government. FRAN KELLY: Okay, and do you agree with Tony Abbott that you will win Eden Monaro? ANDREW ROBB: I think it’s very winnable. I do think that we’ve got in David Gazard somebody who’s got an exceptional record that he’s bringing to that election. And the local member just looks like he got into something that he didn’t realise what was going to be involved. He’s shown a lot more interest in his Parliamentary Secretary job than he has in servicing the electorate. FRAN KELLY: And if you win Eden Monaro you win government. ANDREW ROBB: Well it’s a bellwether seat. It’s not guaranteed but that’s the way things have happened. We’re, look Fran, we’re coming from a long way behind but we’re going to be very competitive. Already with the change of leadership, what the interesting thing is our primary vote has not moved. In yesterday’s polling it was still at 42 per cent. We’re within reach but we’ve got a lot of work to do. FRAN KELLY: Alright Andrew Robb, thank you very much for joining us. ANDREW ROBB: Thanks very much Fran. Andrew Robb Wed, 14 Jul 2010 02:54:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1132 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1131/Interview-on-ABC-AM-Program.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1131 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1131&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1131/Interview-on-ABC-AM-Program.aspx TONY EASTLEY: As pressure continues on where to process asylum seekers, the Federal Treasurer hopes figures released today will boost the Government’s economic credentials. Wayne Swan will release an updated economic forecast and it's expected to give more details about the projected revenues from the revised mining tax, as well as confirmation the budget will return to surplus in 2013. But the Opposition says the update is a smokescreen, designed to hide big losses of revenue given away in negotiations over the mining tax. Ashley Hall reports from Canberra. ASHLEY HALL: It's just nine weeks since the Treasurer handed down the budget and already Wayne Swan is providing updated economic forecasts. WAYNE SWAN: There has been uncertainty in the global economy. We think it's important to put an update out there given that uncertainty. ASHLEY HALL: The Treasurer says the update will confirm the budget is on track for a return to surplus. WAYNE SWAN: The budget will be in surplus in three years, three years early and ahead of every major advanced economy. That's quite an achievement. ASHLEY HALL: And it will provide more details about the revenue the Government expects from the revised mining tax. WAYNE SWAN: I'm certainly happy to provide more detail on the fiscal impact of our tax reforms as we move forward. I think there is a community appetite for that information. ASHLEY HALL: The Opposition's finance spokesman Andrew Robb says it's about time the Government provided more details. ANDREW ROBB: Well yesterday the Treasury Secretary, Ken Henry, confirmed in as many words that the budget revenue from the revamped mining tax is a sham. ASHLEY HALL: The figures came from the mining companies themselves, are you suggesting that BHP, Rio and Xstrata were misleading the Government? ANDREW ROBB: No I'm not. What I'm suggesting is that if they're the numbers on which the Government has constructed its estimates, the miners are now confirming they expect not much more than $300 million a year, at least BHP it's the biggest the miner. There is no way if that's true that the Government can get anywhere near the $10.5 billion that is forecast. ASHLEY HALL: Andrew Robb says today's figures should be viewed with scepticism. ANDREW ROBB: The mining numbers will disappear amongst a bevy of other predictions and they will seek then to move on. Well the people shouldn't let them. ASHLEY HALL: The Government insists the $1.5 billion dollars cut from the mining tax during negotiations with the big miners won't affect the budget bottom line, so why release an economic update now? One theory suggests governments like to put out a set of figures in the period before an election campaign to, in effect, tie the treasury's hands when it prepares the official pre-election economic outlook. The economic forecaster Chris Richardson of Access Economics says today's forecasts shouldn't differ much from what was in the budget. CHRIS RICHARDSON: The broad global recovery is proceeding, China is still doing very well there are no big differences there. Same for the Australian economy, retail is slow, the pace at which the recovery in housing construction is arriving is also slow, even there however, it's not that different for the same basic economic picture for Australia that we had at budget time as well. TONY EASTLEY: The director of Access Economics, Chris Richardson. Ashley Hall our reporter in Canberra. Andrew Robb Wed, 14 Jul 2010 01:51:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1131 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1130/Interview-with-Ross-Greenwood-Money-News-2GB.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1130 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1130&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1130/Interview-with-Ross-Greenwood-Money-News-2GB.aspx Topics: Doubts about Labor’s mining tax raising $10.5 billion in revenue, Julia Gillard’s half-baked asylum seekers’ thought bubble, Federal election odds and polls. E&OE ROSS GREENWOOD: The Shadow Finance Minister, Andrew Robb, who joins us now. Hello Andrew. ANDREW ROBB: Good evening Ross. ROSS GREENWOOD: A question for you, I noticed, I was actually a bit gob-smacked by this, page eight in the Financial Review which is supposed to be the journal of business, the document that you gained from Bank of America and Merrill Lynch’s analyst, after a briefing with the BHP Billiton Chief Financial Officer, Alex Vanselow, today indicating that, one, BHP Billiton is not likely to pay any tax after the minerals resource rent tax for 25 years, number two, that, according to the analyst, Jason Fairclough, the case for an emergency mini-budget is compelling, the revised budget estimates of revenues have just been made up and the multi billion dollar hole exposed in the budget will mean no budget surplus and pressure even higher interest rates and higher costs of living, which of course was your commentary on the whole thing. So the point about this is, that quite clearly, something needs to be done, urgently. ANDREW ROBB: Well, you know, we’ve been concerned all along that the budget is basically a house of cards. I mean if you look at the assumptions, they’re just you know ridiculous, especially in year three and four where they claim that they’re going to get a surplus. I mean this year is the biggest budget deficit in the history of the country, $57 billion. Next year will be the second biggest in the country’s history, $40 billion in deficit. And then they claim a surplus the next year. It just doesn’t hold up to any sort of scrutiny. The problem with this one is the third and fourth year they claim a lot of the surplus is dependent on this mining tax. Well now it appears from this report of the BHP Chief Financial Officer, that he’s saying really they won’t pay on their existing assets any sort of revenue of any consequence for the next twenty five years. Well that means that BHP and Rio, which were 80 per cent of the revenue anyway, will be paying very little. Where’s the $10.5 billion that the Government claims that will be received in the years ahead when you know at the moment the whole budget deficit, the whole budget surplus proposition is a complete fallacy. ROSS GREENWOOD: The second thing of course is that Goldman Sachs/JB Were estimated that by 2020, the foregone revenue could sort of be $35 billion… ANDREW ROBB: That’s right. ROSS GREENWOOD: …but the issue of this also is that Treasury has not been asked to forecast any more than two years ahead. So the Australian public right now has got no idea as to how much this could potentially cost. ANDREW ROBB: Well, the Government has refused, as has the Treasury, to provide any estimates or any detail of how they arrived at these estimates. The companies, the mining companies have been sworn to silence. You know we can’t even get calls returned in many cases. There is a cone of silence that has gone down over really what makes up this mining tax, how much tax will the miners really pay or not pay, how it was arrived at. It does appear from the briefing from BHP in London that the company will really pay very little if any tax in the years ahead. The coal seam gas companies are saying the same thing. So it would appear that the Government’s claiming $10.5 billion, a lot of money $10.5 billion a year. The companies are giving the impression, certainly in overseas briefings, that they won’t be paying anything, and they have said that retrospectivity no longer applies which means they won’t be paying anything. So there is a big hole in this budget. The confidence that people can have that this Government has got a grasp on the economics of this country must be severely challenged. The election will be about the economy, it will be about costs of living for people, it will be about interest rates and how quickly they will go up. Therefore, the Government has a great responsibility to demonstrate that its budget is not built on a house of cards. ROSS GREENWOOD: One issue here of course also is that a lot of those who may have been affected, those who look for coal seam gas, of course have now been put under the petroleum resource rent tax. But of course one thing that the Government seems to have been at pains to make certain occurs, is a lot of the big projects such as the Gladstone LNG projects as well as that also quite clearly, with the exemptions of anything other than coal and iron ore, Olympic Dam and others to go ahead. Are you concerned right now that maybe the public has not worked out there may have been individual agreements signed or individual coal seam gas projects ANDREW ROBB: Well the coal seam gas companies are saying that they expect to pay no extra tax over what they would have paid. ROSS GREENWOOD: No extra tax? ANDREW ROBB: No extra tax. So in other words they’ll pay the royalties which would’ve gone to the states and they are saying they’ll pay no extra tax. So if they’re not paying any extra tax and if BHP is saying that most of its existing mines or all of its existing mines now won’t be taxed, well, what will be taxed? ROSS GREENWOOD: Well that’s the issue I guess. We’re about to go to the polls and this was a key area that the Prime Minister personally intervened in to try and sort out. The miners walked away all very happy but it would appear as though the Government in terms of its budget forecasts is completely out of whack right now. ANDREW ROBB: Well the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, was feted after this for having achieved some extraordinary negotiation, but every day it’s starting to look as though what she did do is simply cave into the miners, which is not difficult to do and in the process has blown a hole in the budget. Therefore no one can have any confidence about the prospect of surpluses in a few years time. What that means is there will be greater pressure on interest rates and costs of living. And the general confidence in the ability of this Government, having lost Lindsay Tanner, having lost Kevin Rudd, there is no economic talent left. In many respects Wayne Swan is seen as a total light weight and Julia Gillard really has never had anything much to do with economic policy. So we’ve really got a bunch of amateurs in my view and at the very least, they should tomorrow, when Ken Henry appears before the Senate Fuel and Energy Committee, he should be allowed to answer how they got to these sorts of assessments, that there’ll be a $10.5-11 billion from the mining industry tax in the budget in three years time. ROSS GREENWOOD: Can I ask you another question, is this afternoon of course another key plank of the Prime Minister’s policy to clear the decks before calling a federal election was the idea of having an asylum seekers’ refuge or basically I suppose centre in East Timor. Now the whole idea of a processing centre in East Timor has this afternoon been rejected outright by East Timor’s Government and we heard from Arsenio Bano, Vice President of the Fretilin Party and East Timor MP saying that was unanimously voted down by all sides of each political party in East Timor. What does that do in terms of the Government’s plans? ANDREW ROBB: Well again it just means that they had no plans basically. The plan was for a centre in East Timor. That was a ludicrous plan in the first place because what it would mean, it would mean that there would be literally in the end prospectively hundreds of thousands of people trying to get to East Timor as a sort of certain route to being assessed and placed somewhere, hopefully Australia. It was never going to happen. Plus that country, you couldn’t have people in a refugee or a detention centre, probably living a lot better than many of the people who are living in East Timor. I mean it was never going to happen, which just means again, that it’s policy on the run. Nothing seems to have changed from Kevin Rudd’s period. He started a hundred things and finished none of them. And now because he galloped into everything and then galloped onto the next thing before any of it was completed, creates all these expectations, we’ve seen Julia Gillard I think doing the same with the mining tax, now we’re starting to see that the numbers that it was all based on and the expected tax revenue is illusory, is not there. Now we’re seeing the next big policy, the boat people, it’s not an answer, they’ve got no plan and as a consequence it will encourage further, the people smugglers to encourage people to get on boats and get on over here. ROSS GREENWOOD: But Andrew Robb, you’d be also conscience of the fact that despite all of that right now, not just with bookmakers but with opinion polls, that Julia Gillard appears to be a red hot favourite for the forth coming federal election. ANDREW ROBB: Well, I agree with the bookmakers, they’ve still got a strong lead. On the polls itself, ever since they had a change of the leadership and dumped Kevin Rudd unceremoniously, our primary vote, in other words those people who would vote with their fist vote, has stuck on 42. We haven’t moved. In other words, our base hasn’t moved. We only need another two or three primary points and we would win the election. So we’re not far away. Julia Gillard and the Government dropped in both polls today, they dropped seven primary points from last week, so it went back to the Greens. I think you know 52/48 is still a very contestable position. This election, because there’s a whole new team in the Labor Government and we’re in our first term in opposition, this election I think will be the first one in a long, long time where the campaign will count because we really are starting off not far apart to be honest. And how we perform and how we explain how we would run the country. How we would get the debt down, how we would get the deficits removed, how we will take pressure off interest rates, they’re the sorts of things that will determine whether we would get up or not. ROSS GREENWOOD: Andrew Robb, who is the Shadow Minister for Finance, we appreciate your time here on Money News. ANDREW ROBB: Many thanks, thank you Ross. Further information: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Tue, 13 Jul 2010 04:21:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1130 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1129/BHP-Bells-the-Cat-on-Labors-105-Billion-Budget-Sham.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1129 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1129&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1129/BHP-Bells-the-Cat-on-Labors-105-Billion-Budget-Sham.aspx It is reported today that BHP chief executive Marius Kloppers has confirmed that his company will suffer “little impact” during the first five years of Labor’s new mining tax. Shadow Minister for Finance Andrew Robb said as each day passes Labor’s claims that it will raise $10.5 billion in revenue from its mining tax over the last two years of the Budget forward estimates are looking less and less believable. The budget is in tatters. “Mr Kloppers inferred that BHP would pay little more than $300 million a year for the next few years. If the nation’s biggest miner is going to pay such an amount, there is no possibility of Labor raising $1.5 billion, much less $10.5 billion,” Mr Robb said. “We have analysts lining up saying that Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan’s massive back down on the mining tax means there will be very little impact on BHP and Rio Tinto from the revised tax in the foreseeable future. “Respected analysts UBS have said under the revised minerals tax existing projects had been effectively provided with a ‘tax shield’ for the life of the assets, a maximum of 25 years,” Mr Robb said. “On top of this we also know that the on-shore coal seam gas companies are not expecting to pay any additional tax under Labor’s big con.” Mr Robb said Ms Gillard and Mr Swan have a lot of explaining to do. “If the nation’s biggest miners are expecting the tax to have very little impact over the coming years, there is no way known Labor will raise $10.5 billion. It’s a sham and Labor’s economic credibility has totally evaporated. “Wayne Swan is in hiding and Julia Gillard cannot explain where the $10.5 billion is going to come from, money which Labor already has spent. “Julia Gillard won plaudits for striking a deal with the miners, but all she has done is cave in to their demands, with the miners sworn to secrecy so the extent of her back down is not revealed to taxpayers before the election. “Wayne Swan’s budget is a house of cards which has now collapsed and what he and Julia Gillard have done is create a multi-billion-dollar black hole in the nation’s finances which taxpayers will be lumbered with for years to come,” Mr Robb said. Media Contact: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Tue, 13 Jul 2010 01:09:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1129 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1128/Swan-Must-Come-Out-of-Witness-Protection-to-Face-New-Doubts-Over-Mining-Tax-Revenue.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1128 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1128&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1128/Swan-Must-Come-Out-of-Witness-Protection-to-Face-New-Doubts-Over-Mining-Tax-Revenue.aspx Wayne Swan must today come out of hiding and explain himself in response to serious new doubts over his claims that Labor’s new mining tax will raise $10.5 billion in revenue over the Budget forward estimates. It has been reported today that the Chief Financial Officer of BHP told a Bank of America Merrill Lynch analyst that the new tax will have “very little impact” on the company’s revenues for “the first 25 years”. Shadow Minister for Finance Andrew Robb said this follows revelations that on-shore coal seam gas projects will pay next to no additional tax as a result of Wayne Swan and Julia Gillard’s monumental back down. “If the major companies are expecting to pay next to no additional tax on their existing projects, how on earth does Wayne Swan expect this tax to raise $10.5 billion in revenue over the forward estimates?” Mr Robb asked. “This explains why the three negotiating companies have been sworn to silence about the revenue estimates, and why the government refuses to release any figures. “This reeks of a cover up and Wayne Swan needs to come out and explain how he plans to make $10.5 billion out of nothing and he needs to release the details and assumptions behind his dubious claims. “Wayne Swan has not been sighted for more than a week, and now we know why. He needs to come out of his witness protection program and explain his numbers, because they are not believable and look dodgier by the day. “Under Labor’s original super profits tax, around $7 billion of the forecasted annual $9 billion tax take would have come from BHP and Rio through the retrospective taxing of existing projects. “We know Labor has rolled over on this aspect of the tax and with resources companies themselves expecting to pay very little extra tax on their existing projects, Wayne Swan’s budget is now in tatters and needs to be re-done,” Mr Robb said.   Media Contact: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Mon, 12 Jul 2010 04:26:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1128 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1127/Labors-Evasion-of-the-Truth-Over-Mining-Tax-Could-Create-the-Perpetual-Budget-Black-Hole.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1127 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1127&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1127/Labors-Evasion-of-the-Truth-Over-Mining-Tax-Could-Create-the-Perpetual-Budget-Black-Hole.aspx Labor’s evasion of the truth concerning the new mining tax could create a perpetual black hole in the Budget. Furthermore, within three days of the announcement the Resources Minister, Martin Ferguson, has promised miners he will consider further changes to the deal. “This latest misleading and incompetent episode suggests that the Federal Labor Government’s pathetic record as an economic manager has not changed under the new prime minister,” said Andrew Robb, Shadow Minister for Finance. “The amateurish haste, cynicism and deception that drove this quick-fix are symptomatic of the Rudd-Gillard approach of the past three years,” Mr Robb said. “Yesterday’s revelation by the Treasury Secretary that predicted revenue levels in excess of $10 billion are based on the spurious assumption that world record commodity prices will prevail in three and four years time, compounds the trickery. “Such an assumption, if realised at all, will be short-lived and will create a perpetual financial black hole in the budget,” Mr Robb said. “Such an assumption also ignores the significant supply response emerging around the world, driven by the current high prices. “Furthermore, analysts have said that the changes announced mean than instead of the net present value of a typical mining company being reduced by 11 per cent under the original Labor proposal, Julia Gillard’s back down will mean the net present value will be reduced by just one per cent. “Future revenue from this tax will go nowhere towards funding commitments promised to be paid for by this tax. “This has been a tawdry smoke and mirrors exercise. Unless Labor’s reckless spending is stopped, getting the budget back in the black is a pipedream,” Mr Robb said. The cost and incompetence of this sorry saga is further emphasised by: The intention to indefinitely take $10.5 billion in income from the shareholders of a small section of Australian companies. The loss of shareholder value. As companies are typically valued at a multiple of about 12-14 times their annual earnings, this intended tax grab represents a transfer of capital value from shareholders of something like $120-140 billion. The constitutional cloud hanging over the deal. The lack of information provided to investors. The fact that to attract investment into junior exploration requires the expectation of a long-term equity rate of return, pre-tax, of 20 to 25 per cent. The drying up of project finances for the second tier developments, until the details of this tax are finalised. The dire impact on the financing of junior exploration. And the prospect that the tax may well affect little more than 100 companies from a tax revenue point-of-view, further undermines the budget projections –  while affecting at least hundreds of firms from a future financing perspective, showing the stupidity of negotiating a deal only with the “cashed up” majors. “The ripple effects are enormous. Labor’s approach further increases Australia’s vulnerability to any double dip recession emerging in the Northern Hemisphere,” Mr Robb said. Media Contact: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Tue, 06 Jul 2010 04:49:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1127 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1123/Labors-Budget-in-Tatters-After-Mining-Back-Down.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1123 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1123&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1123/Labors-Budget-in-Tatters-After-Mining-Back-Down.aspx Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan’s claim that their revised great big new tax on mining will cost the budget just $1.5 billion over the forward estimates are simply laughable and raise massive new doubts about Labor’s capacity to return the budget to surplus within three years. The budget factored in $12 billion in revenue from the great big new tax in its original form, yet the government asserts that it will still deliver $10.5 billion. Shadow Minister for Finance Andrew Robb said this is simply unbelievable: The tax was to apply to 2500 mines, it will now apply to just over 300 mines. The tax was to cut in at the bond rate, it now cuts in at the bond rate (6 per cent) plus 7 per cent. The headline rate has been reduced from 40 per cent to effectively 22.5 per cent, once you apply the 25 per cent extraction discount. The May Budget papers said the government’s tax plan would promote growth across the entire economy, based on the government assuming 40 per cent of the risk in each mining project. The government claimed a subsequent growth dividend of $600 million in 2012-13 and 2013-14. There is now no basis for claiming a growth dividend. “This confirms that Labor’s budget is a house of cards and lacks all credibility. Either the government has played with the assumptions, or it is simply lying to the public,” Mr Robb said. “The case for an emergency mini-budget is compelling. It appears that the revised estimates have just been made up. “The government is being run by a bunch of amateurs. This whole process has created enormous long-term damage to our reputation as a safe and stable investment destination, and has undermined local and overseas business confidence in national governance in Australia. “This smoke and mirrors announcement today is no more than a political fix. It is a deal struck with three big miners. The Coalition is worried about the smaller miners. The prospect of mid-tier miners attracting vital overseas finance has been gutted. “This tax will be seen as the thin end of the wedge. Once the framework is in place the Labor government will change the rate every time they run out of money. “The tax remains simply a tax grab, not tax reform. It is designed to fund Labor’s $100 billion debt and $57 billion deficit. This erratic and spendthrift Labor government can’t be trusted not to make future changes. “It was a very bad tax yesterday, and remains a very bad tax today. “The Coalition will oppose this tax in opposition, and rescind it in government,” Mr Robb said. Media Contact: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Fri, 02 Jul 2010 03:34:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1123 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1122/Interview-with-Neil-Mitchell-3AW-Breakfast.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1122 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1122&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1122/Interview-with-Neil-Mitchell-3AW-Breakfast.aspx Topics: Coalition’s $1.5 billion mental health package, John Howard and ICC, Labor’s debt and deficit. E&OE NEIL MITCHELL: I said a moment ago I thought that the Opposition, the Federal Opposition strategy on mental health, the announcement on mental health yesterday, was very smart. One – because it is needed, $1.5 billion on mental health. Two – because mental health is developing into an issue for the election campaign. We’ve had the Government’s chief adviser quit. We’ve had the Australian of the Year, he said to me the day after the budget, the lack of funding for mental health here will kill people, and people will die as a result of what’s going on. It is an important issue. We know that it touches 20 per cent of Australians. And when you extrapolate that to families and friend and it is massive. It is a massive issue and it is coming out of the closet if you like, it is coming out in public. Now the Opposition policy puts the Government in a position saying we’ve got to match it, we’ve got to do something, in which case it looks like me too politics. Or else they’ve got to ignore it, in which case they’re ignoring something that matters to a lot of Australians. In the studio with me is the Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction, Andrew Robb, good morning. ANDREW ROBB: Good morning Neil. NEIL MITCHELL: I suppose in a sense that you’d be happy if the Government copied this wouldn’t you? ANDREW ROBB: Well indeed, I mean it does confer that you know we know what’s needed, and as a first term Opposition you’ve got to establish your credentials, for government.  NEIL MITCHELL: But it will also mean that no matter who won the election that there will be some money spent on mental health. ANDREW ROBB: Well there has got to be. I mean it has been for too long a really underground issue if you like. I think a lot of the stigma that attached to it for years is probably why in my own circumstance I didn’t confront it. You just feel that there’s a sort of character issue associated with it. You know, you are weak. That was the sort of attitude I think. But as you said it has come out a lot more and I think Jeff Kennett, there is a lot of credit to be given to Jeff on this. They tell me that about 20 per cent of the population that’s four million people have some sort of depressive condition. But only 65 per cent, so that’s about two and a half, so 65 per cent don’t do anything about it. They live with it. NEIL MITCHELL: If you have got 20 per cent of the population touched by it with it, how many people does that affect? Because they have all got friends, families, wives, kids and it’s reaching out everywhere. I cannot quite understand, I take your point about the stigma, but I can’t quite understand why there has not been until now a more of a focus on it. It’s a health issue. It is a crucial health issue. We’ve got, people like the Australian of the Year going on about it. Why has it taken so long? ANDREW ROBB: Well, I don’t know, but you know, it is very much the stigma stuff. I mean I can remember the Auntie Joan has got nerves. You know I never heard that any man had nerves right because as men you have got to tough it out, if you have got a problem work your way through it, or otherwise people think that you are not up to responsibility, you are weak. I think that is a lot of it frankly. It is only if you think back since people started to say well it can be fixed, if  you can confront it, you can go on, doing what you are doing in taking on more responsibility and the stigma started to go. It is seen as a general health issue now a lot more than it ever was. NEIL MITCHELL: Well as you say you have become a bit of a poster boy for it in a sense, having gone public about the form of depression that you had and having gone through that period taking time off and now back in a very high pressure and high level job.  But do you get a bit sick of that? A bit tired of people defining you by that? ANDREW ROBB: Well, no I’m not. I feel a bit of responsibility in the sense that I was privileged enough when I decided that I had a problem, and for years I just thought I had a morning problem and just wake up to yourself, you know, get on with it, and then my morning problem stretched into 10 o’clock and 11 o’clock and it was really staring to affect me, my wife and I would talk about it and decided to confront it. It was because I had the privilege of knowing Jeff Kennett, with the jobs that I have had, to pick up the phone and got some decent help. A lot of people aren’t in that position. In fact I have had literally, in the months that I was sort of experimenting and I had literally thousands of e-mails Neil and overwhelmingly people were saying how do I get some help? Where do I go to? You know I went to a doctor some time ago and sort of thought I would confront it but he told me to forget the medication it doesn’t do any good, right. I went away again thinking wake up to yourself, you know, I’ve got to live with this. So, I feel now that I have punched through it and I have had fourteen weeks now with mornings like I have never had in my life, okay. I am jumping out of my skin and really enjoying what I am doing. So I feel a bit of a responsibility to do what I can to help others, you know take it on. NEIL MITCHELL: Have you had any adverse reaction from colleagues or public servants or people you deal with? I’m reminded of, I read a piece by him this week, Neil Cole, the former Labor Attorney General, Shadow Attorney General, member of the Labor front bench in the State Parliament who suffers from bipolar disorder and he was massively undermined by his own party because they said he said a couple of provocative things, people briefing journalists saying he’s mentally ill. That was some years ago admittedly but have you suffered in any way? Have people treated you differently or been a little unsympathetic in some areas? ANDREW ROBB: No. When I decided to go public and the only reason was because I was in a relatively high profile position and to deal with the side effects of the medication which was proving very difficult, you just have to work thought that, but I thought the only way I could do this is to get it out on the table. I did think about it a lot because I thought this could be the end of my political career and in the end I decided well I don’t care, I am on a mission now, they tell me I can fix this thing and I didn’t care in the end what people thought. But the response was just fantastic, from lots of people I didn’t know, everyone I did know, they were very supportive. When we had the leadership change and I played some role in it, a couple of people said well you know he’s not well to try and explain my intervention. NEIL MITCHELL: You gave a pretty passionate speech. ANDREW ROBB: Yes, but I was very clear-headed that day but that was the only time anyone sort of used it against me in a political sense, anyway I didn’t care. I really wanted to able to prove if I could that you can get back and even take on higher responsibility that’ll do more good than anything that I can say. NEIL MITCHELL: It’s interesting when you talk about that speech where you backed Tony Abbott and spoke about Malcolm Turnbull, a senior Liberal said to me, he’s not well Andrew and they have manipulated him and put him up to that and I thought, you don’t understand depression. If they thought you were going to manipulate somebody with the condition to stand up and do something they didn’t believe in, I think you’re just a drongo. ANDREW ROBB: Pathetic. The fact is that it wasn’t against Malcolm, it was against the policy. I mean I had been the Shadow Minister for Climate Change and I knew more about it than anyone else. And I stepped out of the Shadow Cabinet for a few weeks because of this condition, this was a huge policy, this was the biggest structural change that all of my colleagues would be voting on. I thought the presentation of the negotiations had been quite disingenuous, was quite inaccurate, that it was a dog of a policy and someone had to stand up that knew about it and put the facts on the table. I didn’t tell anyone I was going to do that because I thought I would be headed off at the pass. So no one knew, no one manipulated me, no one knew that I was going to stand up and talk that day so anyway. NEIL MITCHELL: But it must’ve been a tough thing to do because you weren’t well? ANDREW ROBB: Well okay, my problem has been a morning problem and it just got longer. I’d be depressed for three to four hours because I release chemicals later than anybody else, several hours later that you need.  When I get to the right level, I am okay, quite different to a lot of other people but it was becoming debilitating.  When I took leave it was the medication that had all sorts of different effects on you and that’s when you need the space I think just to, if you are having a bad day, that day, I was tired but I was fine, I was clear in the head and I had the adrenalin pumping, that always helps so I was on a mission if you like, and I was in good form. NEIL MITCHELL: From what I hear of the speech, you had a very clear head. Hello Maureen, go ahead Maureen. CALLER: Hi Andrew, I am probably a bit older than Andrew. When I was a child I had the same symptoms that Andrew had. I’d think I was going to die and going to collapse. No one would listen to me, the family got worried and brought their brother in who was a doctor and the answer I got was ‘go to confession’, you’ll be right, if you die you will go to heaven straightaway. NEIL MITCHELL: How are you now? CALLER: Well, for years I have had it and never knew what to do with it, hid it from everyone and I just happened to go one day the doctor gave me an anxiety pill. I carry them everywhere and I am fine. ANDREW ROBB: See, there you go. MAUREEN: I just take them when I need them. NEIL MITCHELL: That’s the point isn’t it, treatable.  Thanks Maureen, thank you very much. Now, we’ll take a break and come back with more from Andrew Robb. I want the detail of the spending on mental health as outlined by the Opposition yesterday, where it goes from here and some other issues as well.  Andrew Robb, Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction, who will be joining us during the election campaign on a regular basis and debate a member of the Government in the lead up. NEIL MITCHELL: Andrew Robb, so being Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction, well various things, but the new mental health policy being offered by the Federal Opposition, $1.5 billion, what will it do Andrew Robb? When does it kick in? ANDREW ROBB: The focus Neil is very much on young people. What the experts tell us is, of the 4 million people in Australia with some sort of condition, 75 per cent of them, so 3 million of them, would’ve started that condition in the years, sort of 13 to 25. So they claim, if you can get hold of them early, and get them some treatment and some management tools and all the rest, a lot of them can completely get over it, others can manage it and get on with their lives. So the focus is the three programs. One is for 60 more Headspace sites. Now this is Patrick McGorry, the Australian of the Year, he’s pioneered this where they’re centres, they be all through metropolitan and regional areas. There are 30 already that he put in place after our last period of office in government. He said they need 90, to really comprehensively cover the country. So we’re offering the other 60. They’re call in centres which will be staffed by professionals and all the rest. They’ll be well promoted around local areas. It’ll be an opportunity for young people to go in and get the right advice and get headed in the right direction. The second one is what is called early psychosis prevention centres. A lot of acute and sub-acute cases, you know young people who have bad break downs, and it could be induced by drugs and other things which could exacerbate an underlying problem, or alcohol or whatever. But centres that when people turn up in emergency rooms they can be taken off to these again highly specialised, well staffed. And we’re going to put in 800 new beds for these centres all around the country so that they can be self contained. NEIL MITCHELL: It’s interesting isn’t it? We get a report of somebody who’s turned away or is waiting a long time for surgery on a broken leg and there’s outrage. But I get calls from people whose children, I remember one whose child was anorexic, and they couldn’t get her a bed. And she was close to death, and we helped get her a bed. But it is really difficult to get a mental health bed. ANDREW ROBB: That’s correct, extremely difficult. And to get a bed where the proper support is there, that people who know what they’re talking about and can understand what’s going on with this person quickly and do what has to be done and to provide the right support. NEIL MITCHELL: Hello Sean, go ahead Sean. CALLER: Ah yes, good morning gentlemen. I have been a sufferer of bipolar for 3 years now, just diagnosed. Prior to that, for 15 years, I was up and down like a rollercoaster. I never kept a job, couldn’t keep money, I was always in and out of hospital, and with bad, bad, very severe depression and anxiety. Now it wasn’t until 3 years ago that I stood there and said to myself, I have no life. I have no social life, no friends, no money, something seriously is wrong with me. And one day my mum went to hospital, she got diagnosed with bipolar and she’s 56 now, it’s taken her 40 years to be diagnosed. NEIL MITCHELL: And how are you going Sean? Are you medicated? Are you controlled? How are you going? CALLER: I’m controlled, I’m medicated. I had to seriously look at myself and recognise the problems that I had and take control of that, as bipolar takes control of you. You need to catch onto that, manage it and be more self sufficient in the way that you handle your life. NEIL MITCHELL: Well it’s true, it’s very true. We talk to several people in the program, we’ve talked about their bipolar condition and it is manageable, like a lot of them. Now if we could move onto some other issues. Thanks for calling Sean. Julia Gillard, she’s going to be harder to beat isn’t she? ANDREW ROBB: Well, you know, we had Rudd’s measure. I think there’s no doubt about that. And Julia, you get a new person in, you get the honeymoon. She’s a clever politician and she’s more personable than Kevin Rudd so we’ve got to get through that. But in the end, the way we look at it, you know, they’ve changed jockeys but the horse it still the same and if we can focus the campaign on that I think we’re still in with a strong show. NEIL MITCHELL: Okay, when do you think the election will be? When are you ready for it? ANDREW ROBB: Well, we’re ready now actually because we thought Kevin Rudd might go as early as he could if he got the conditions right which obviously he didn’t. But, I think Julia Gillard will seek to go, and take advantage, rely on the sort of superficial wave of support that’s coming from her entry into it and before she really has to grapple with too many issues. Of course, she’s been the person sitting behind Kevin for two and half years and nodding furiously in agreement with everything he’s had to say. But, still there’ll be a honeymoon and they’ll try and separate that. But it’s our job to nail them on the $100 billion debt which Julia’s had a big part in. NEIL MITCHELL: Do you think what’s happened to John Howard with the International Cricket Council is an insult to Australia? ANDREW ROBB: Yes I do. Yes I do. I think it’s very much, and we had a chat about it earlier, I agree with you, I think it’s very much a case of India thinking that he was too strong of an individual, and that they would have less influence than they wished in the years ahead. I mean they do pride themselves now on being now the cricketing nation and I think it’s a big insult really. NEIL MITCHELL: When you start cutting debt, are we going to hurt? ANDREW ROBB: Well the fact of matter is people are already hurting. You see if you’ve a $100 billion debt, every day the Government is borrowing $100 million. That’s $700 million a week. And the budget predicted that that would occur for the next two years. Now someone has to pay for it, and everyone understands that. And I think July 1 today you see rates up, car rego up, power bills will be up, electricity, gas, all of these things. Now people I think will start to understand why the cost of living is going up because these things have to be paid, that’s why they go after the mining tax, all of these things flow into the cost of living. NEIL MITCHELL: Could I convince you to build a light rail from the airport to the city of Melbourne? ANDREW ROBB: Well, there are a lot of things you could convince me to do, or us to do. But the bottom line is we’ve got to get some prudence back. The problem is this Government has thought that the solution to every problem is to spend more money. And they did it before the global financial crisis that was their solution. During the financial crisis that was the solution. And it’s again the solution. And with what’s happening in Europe, we could well have a second, a double, dip and the resilience of our economy has to be restored. NEIL MITCHELL: Thanks you for your time. Look forward to talking to you during the election campaign. ANDREW ROBB: My pleasure Neil, thank you. Andrew Robb Thu, 01 Jul 2010 06:08:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1122 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1119/Interview-with-Marius-Benson-News-Radio.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1119 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1119&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1119/Interview-with-Marius-Benson-News-Radio.aspx Topics: Upcoming federal election, Labor’s weak economic team, mining tax, paid parental leave scheme E&OE MARIUS BENSON: Andrew Robb the speculation is now that Australia will be voting probably by August are you ready from the Opposition’s side for an August poll, I suppose you have to be? ANDREW ROBB: Yes we are. We always thought that Kevin Rudd was hell-bent on going as early as he could and now with the change of jockey there’s a different reason for running early, to try and capitalise on the personality and honeymoon issue and avoid scrutiny. MARIUS BENSON: And with that change of jockey the Labor horse has taken a bit of a lead on you. ANDREW ROBB: Well you’d expect, there’s been saturation coverage, first female prime minister, you’d expect that you’d see some movement. The important thing, I think, is to allow a bit of time, so we can have then an objective assessment by people about the performance of this Labor government over the last three years and the prospect of another three years of Labor, what it will mean for the country. MARIUS BENSON: A general view of election campaigns is it is a time the electorate looks particularly at the opposition and considers them, and whether they’re fit to govern. The government is hammering Tony Abbott as being weak in economics, he has dismissed economics as the dismal science, that’s going to be a line of attack. You were specifically brought in to replace Barnaby Joyce, to boost the opposition’s economic standing, do you accept that is going to be a key area of attack from the government? ANDREW ROBB: I accept that economics is going to be the key to the election. That is the priority. On our front Tony Abbott, he’s got an economic degree, he’s been a minister in a very successful government over 11 years, Joe Hockey and myself, I’m a macro-economist with a lot of business experience. On the other side Wayne Swan is universally regarded as a lightweight and Lindsay Tanner won’t be there. MARIUS BENSON: Do you agree with the point that Tony Abbott made at the weekend when he was talking about company tax and he dismissed the government’s proposal to use mining revenue to cut company tax, he said no one much is going to notice the 2 per cent cut in company tax, do you share that view? ANDREW ROBB: Well, I think he was taken right out of context. Tony was saying, compared with the effect of a $12 billion tax on our mining industry, Tony was saying compared with that, the 2 per cent cut in company tax does pale into insignificance. MARIUS BENSON: Ok, the government is promising this 2 per cent cut in company tax if the mining tax does go through to fund it. The opposition on the other hand is planning to increase company tax by nearly 2 per cent for more than 3,000 of Australia’s biggest companies, that’s to fund the paid parental leave scheme. A lot of people are saying were the opposition to win the first thing to go would be the paid parental leave scheme. Can you guarantee it will be implemented if the opposition wins? ANDREW ROBB: There is no doubt that the paid parental leave scheme will go ahead. Our focus on any spending in the next term of office will be on those things that increase our productivity. And the paid parental leave scheme is a productivity-related measure. It will enable us to keep many women in the workforce who are highly trained, highly skilled, and who may otherwise leave the workforce for some years because of their circumstance. So it’s a very important measure we see from a productivity point of view and I can guarantee that we will go ahead with it. MARIUS BENSON: So that’s an absolute guarantee the paid parental leave scheme? ANDREW ROBB: It is. MARIUS BENSON: Then the corollary of that is that it’s guaranteed that the company tax on 3,200 of our biggest companies will go up by 1.7 per cent? ANDREW ROBB: Well, it’s a temporary levy. You might recall in the early years … MARIUS BENSON: Can you say how temporary? ANDREW ROBB: As soon as we get the country’s finances back into some sort of shape we will look to phase that out. That is exactly what we did in the Howard Government. The Howard Government when it took over faced $96 billion worth of debt. We did put in temporary levies, three of them as I recall, in the first three or four years, which were then quickly phased out as we got on top of the massive debt and the deficit problems that were left to us by Labor last time. MARIUS BENSON: Andrew Robb, I’ll leave it there, thank you very much.           Andrew Robb Tue, 29 Jun 2010 02:31:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1119 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1117/Gillard-Must-Nominate-Tanners-Replacement-to-Remove-Business-Uncertainty.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1117 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1117&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1117/Gillard-Must-Nominate-Tanners-Replacement-to-Remove-Business-Uncertainty.aspx Julia Gillard’s failure to replace the retiring Lindsay Tanner in the key Finance portfolio confirms Labor has no credible replacement for him. Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction Andrew Robb said: “What this means is that Australians will go to the election with no idea who Labor’s finance minister will be should it be re-elected. “Mr Tanner is Labor’s only recognised economic talent and was the only person to argue internally against Labor’s reckless stimulus spending, which has created $100 billion in taxpayer debt. “The failure to nominate Mr Tanner’s successor raises serious further questions about Labor’s economic credibility and results in a great deal of uncertainty within the business community and instability within the government. “Julia Gillard must nominate who her finance minister will be if Labor is re-elected and must confirm if Senator Don Farrell, Senator David Feeney, Senator Mark Arbib or Bill Shorten, are in the running” Mr Robb said. Further information: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521. Andrew Robb Mon, 28 Jun 2010 04:24:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1117 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1116/Interview-with-Alison-Carabine-Radio-National-Breakfast-28-June-2010.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1116 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1116&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1116/Interview-with-Alison-Carabine-Radio-National-Breakfast-28-June-2010.aspx Topics: Newspoll, Labor’s great big new tax on mining, impact on the budget if there is a mining tax back down. E&OE ALISON CARABINE: Andrew Robb, good morning. ANDREW ROBB: Good morning, Alison. ALISON CARABINE: We’ll get to the mining tax in just a moment, but first to the Newspoll. It shows Labor’s position has rebounded strongly under the Gillard leadership. Doesn’t this poll confirm that Julia Gillard will be harder to beat at the election than Kevin Rudd? ANDREW ROBB: Well look, they’ve changed the jockey but they haven’t changed the horse and I think once we have an opportunity with the new Prime Minister to expose once again the problems with the raft of policies, the reckless spending, the massive debt that they’ve built up and the lack of any real solution to any of that Once we’ve had a chance to have that debate with the new Prime Minister I think we will remain very competitive. Interestingly, the latest poll is showing that our primary vote is holding steady and the Labor Party have got a lot of votes back from the Greens and the new Prime Minister has had saturation and sympathetic coverage as you’d expect. There is a bounce but I think things will settle down in a political sense over the next few weeks. ALISON CARABINE: But the Newspoll doesn’t stand alone. There’s been a raft of polls since the Gillard ascendency, they all show Labor on track to be re-elected. Is Tony Abbott’s famous victory which was within reach just a week ago now just little more than a forlorn hope? ANDREW ROBB: Well the comments I just made relate to all of those polls that we’ve seen over the last few days but the reason the most extraordinary event happened, with the unions and the faction heavies coming in and executing the Prime Minister was because Tony Abbott had exposed the great weaknesses and the danger that Kevin Rudd and his colleagues had put the Australian economy and the Australian people in with the way in which they’ve mismanaged the economy.  Now, we will need to prosecute that case again. Julia Gillard was Deputy Prime Minister, was part of the Gang of Four, was instrumental in many of those, in fact, all of those decisions, but certainly led some of them like the biggest case of waste and mismanagement namely the school halls is a programme that Julia Gillard has embarked on. Julia Gillard has said nothing since she became Prime Minister about the reckless spending that has led to the highest interest rates in the OECD, the six increased interest rate rises in a row are very much a function of many of the programmes that Julia Gillard has mismanaged and has overseen the reckless spending. They’re doing nothing to curb any of that. ALISON CARABINE: Well considering her position as a member of the Gang of Four and the problems with the BER school halls programme, do you think it’s therefore incumbent of Julia Gillard to announce an election sooner rather than later? ANDREW ROBB: No, it’s incumbent on Julia Gillard to explain what she will do to stop the $5,000 increase in mortgage repayments that’s occurred over the last 12 months because of much of her reckless spending, to stop the prospect of a great big new mining tax which will cause enormous problems with our competitive position and threaten billions and billions of dollars of projects and hundreds of thousands of jobs in the years ahead. She needs to put forward a plan as to how to solve the problems, not just to rush to an election on the back of a honeymoon and hope that her personality will get the government over the line. We need to see hard policies. There are really grave issues out there. People are really struggling on their costs of living and there’s been no mention of those sorts of issues in the last few days. ALISON CARABINE: Well, Julia Gillard does appear to be moving at speed to try and find a resolution to the mining tax dispute. It is a running sore for the government. Now, there is an expectation a deal will be announced by the end of this week. Now, the Opposition also talks to the industry. What are you hearing, when might a compromise be reached? ANDREW ROBB: Well, what we’re hearing is that the government’s asking the miners to open their mind but there’s been no talk about the government opening its mind. We’re hearing that the concessions that Kevin Rudd was on the cusp of announcing are the same concessions that Julia Gillard will present and claiming that she has consulted. We’re hearing that there’ll be some concessions to say the coal seam gas people, that they’ll get rid of the quarries and whatever that should never have been anywhere near a new tax, that they’ll make some other sort of minor concessions, but they’ll seek to push the final decision beyond the election which means, what it means, it’s code for if they get back into government there will be a great big new tax across the mining sector. They will not stop. They are a tax and spending government. They’ve got a hundred billion dollars, the debt they’ve created in under two years. They cannot have any other approach but taxing and spending to sort of deal with this issue. They don’t understand about prudent economic management and that’s what’s going to occur over the next few weeks. I think they will seek to mislead the population, to push this thing beyond the election, the substantive decisions on the mining tax, and then put this tax in when they get back in to government, if they do so. ALISON CARABINE: But before the election it’s almost inevitable that some sort of an agreement will be reached even if it’s just with some sections of the industry. Will the Opposition accept the deal that could be sealed as early as this week? If it’s good enough for the miners, why therefore won’t it be good enough for the Opposition? ANDREW ROBB: Well, one, that’s totally hypothetical and two, there’s no expectation that they will back down on the retrospectivity. No expectation that they will back down substantially, if at all, on the 40 per cent tax rate. No expectation that they won’t seek to secure more or less the $12 billion that’s already on the bottom line, a whole lot of changes at the margins perhaps but any new tax in our view is going to seriously jeopardise some hundreds of new projects over the next few years and that is tens of billions of dollars and hundreds and thousands of jobs. They do not understand how business works, they do not understand risk, they are putting at great risk our economy and now we’ve got Wayne Swan overseas making extraordinary statements to businessmen in the US, the man’s a light weight when it comes to running this country, he is dangerous in the way in which he is going about this and now Julia Gillard has got as much knowledge or as little as he has about running the economy. We need to see a plan from this Government about how they will extract Australia from $100 billion debt, how they will turn around interest rates which are the highest in the Western world and how they’ll tackle the cost of living pressures that so many Australians are facing.  ALISON CARABINE: Just to pick you up on that Andrew Robb, you say Wayne Swan is dangerous. In what regard, he’s a danger to what or to whom? ANDREW ROBB: He’s a danger to the economy. He’s a danger to the economy, here he is in the US, here’s the Treasurer of Australia saying that this tax that we’re putting forward has got nothing to do with the Budget at all. You heard that, you just played that piece. Now, this is absurd. I mean, there’s a $12 billion tax that they’re brining in which is fundamental to their achieving their surpluses in year three and four. Their whole Budget collapses if this tax has got nothing to do with the Budget at all. I mean, the mixed messages being sent around the world is just going to add to the confusion and the sovereign risk that’s now occurring, the uncertainty amongst investors around the world who we depend absolutely and always have for our growth, the uncertainty that’s being generated by Wayne Swan, this tax and this Government is palpable and it is very dangerous to the future prospects of the country. If what’s happening in Europe escalates and we see another second dip recession around the world, Australia will be far more vulnerable than it was two and a half years ago because of the debt and the deficit and the incompetence of Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard and the other members of that Government. ALISON CARABINE: Ok, Andrew Robb, thanks very much for joining us on Radio National Breakfast. ANDREW ROBB: Thanks Alison. Andrew Robb Mon, 28 Jun 2010 02:36:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1116 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1115/Mining-Tax-Backdown-Will-Require-Emergency-Mini-Budget.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1115 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1115&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1115/Mining-Tax-Backdown-Will-Require-Emergency-Mini-Budget.aspx Labor will have no alternative but to bring down an emergency mini-budget if it backs down on its great big new tax on mining. Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction Andrew Robb said today that Wayne Swan's absurd claims at the G20 Summit that the Federal Budget is not dependent on the mining tax, confirms that Labor's recent budget is a "house of cards".   "The projected combined surpluses of $6.4 billion in years 3 and 4 of Labor's budget unambiguously depend on the $12 billion in revenue from the mining tax," Mr Robb said. "If the mining tax revenue is not there the budget collapses, major programs will need to be slashed and Wayne Swan’s reputation will be in tatters.   "Wayne Swan and Julia Gillard need to advise which programs will be slashed and when."   Mr Robb said Labor's claims that the budget will be returned to surplus in three years are simply not believable. "As far as the nation's financial books are concerned, the government is in disarray.   "The highly confused and contradictory messages about the state of the budget and the prospect of a massive, retrospective, anti-competitive mining tax are greatly undermining investor confidence. "Consequently, Labor will have no alternative but to bring down an emergency mini-budget," Mr Robb said. Media Contact: Cameron Hill 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Sun, 27 Jun 2010 23:15:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1115 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1114/Coalition-to-Ensure-Taxpayers-Get-Better-Value-for-Money.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1114 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1114&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1114/Coalition-to-Ensure-Taxpayers-Get-Better-Value-for-Money.aspx A Coalition Government will introduce two significant reforms to ensure taxpayers get better value from their tax dollars, including the establishment of a new Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO). The PBO will be independent and will enhance the transparency and accountability of the budget process and help deliver better policy and financial outcomes for Australian taxpayers. The PBO will be well resourced and provide objective and impartial advice and analysis across the parliament on the Commonwealth budget and budget cycle, including the impact of major policy announcements. The PBO will also work to increase the transparency of the budget process. The PBO will be headed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who will be appointed by the presiding officers of the parliament on the advice of a committee of senior government officials. The Office will have a small, but highly trained staff, whose calibre will reflect the Office’s status as an independent body. Importantly, the new Budget body will be accountable to the Parliament rather than the Executive, much like the Auditor-General or Commonwealth Ombudsman. The Coalition will also strengthen the requirement that ‘value for money’ be considered in the use of Commonwealth resources. We will add ‘value for money’ to the definition of ‘proper use’ of Commonwealth resources in the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. This addition will give governments a greater legal obligation to seek value for money when spending public funds. The Coalition would also add achieving ‘value for money’ to the criteria against which senior officials’ performance is judged. Greater scrutiny and transparency of Commonwealth Budgets will deliver better fiscal outcomes, enhance the quality of government spending and will be an impediment to future Labor governments to engage in further reckless and wasteful spending. Governments will not always like additional scrutiny and accountability, but establishment of the PBO will contribute greatly to a better-informed debate about fiscal policy and the consequences of government decision making, and will therefore help to deliver better outcomes. The Coalition will introduce legislation into the Parliament this week to give effect to these announcements. Media Contacts: Cameron Hill (Office of Andrew Robb) 0408 239 521 Philip Clayton (Office of Guy Barnett) 0414 317 441        Andrew Robb Wed, 23 Jun 2010 06:13:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1114 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1113/Doorstop-Interview-with-the-Hon-Andrew-Robb-AO-MP.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1113 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1113&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1113/Doorstop-Interview-with-the-Hon-Andrew-Robb-AO-MP.aspx Topics: Warwick McKibbin’s scathing attack on the Rudd Government’s economic management, Labor’s grubby political tactics. E&OE ANDREW ROBB: I would just like to make some comments about observations reported overnight by Warwick McKibbin who is a prominent Australian economist and a very distinguished member of the Reserve Bank board. I think what Professor McKibbin has said overnight confirms the great risk that Australia faces from poor economic management by this Rudd Government. In a scathing attack the Reserve Bank board member has slammed the government’s panicked and desperate approach to the Global Financial Crisis; suggested they grossly overspent in their panic, has fuelled higher interest rates as a consequence. Wasteful spending with the school halls’ program and the insulation, has said this is a government that has developed a series of poor policy, the emissions trading scheme. He has said and confirmed that the design and the introduction of the super tax on mining was in response to a series of poor policy over two-and-a-half years and the need to plug a deep hole in their budget because of their reckless spending. I think this does confirm the great risk that people will take if they look to re-elect this Rudd Government. What we’ve seen is that no longer does the government conduct any sort of formal cabinet process. It’s a government run by a gang of four and on many occasions a gang of one. This is irresponsible, it shows a lack of experience, it confirms the presence of panic in so many measures that this government has taken. And it confirms the fact that Labor does not understand business, does not understand how wealth is created and then how that generates jobs and prosperity for all Australians. It really is, as Tony Abbott said last night in his CEDA speech, a Coalition government will return to a cabinet based approach to government, a cabinet based approach to decision making. A traditional approach which has stood Australia in good stead. Bob Hawke ran a very strong cabinet based approach to government and good policy came out of that approach. John Howard ran a very strong cabinet based approach to government. This government is a one-man-band with his few acolytes, three acolytes who appear to make all the decisions, don’t canvas issues widely and have made mistake after mistake after mistake on major policy issues which we are all now paying a huge price for. JOURNALIST: Did Tony Abbott tell the Coalition party room meeting that they are within reach of a famous victory? ANDREW ROBB: No he didn’t, from my recollection Tony Abbott advised the party room that our prospects had improved significantly, but we still had a long way to go. I’m a great believer in the market and looking at the betting at the moment we are still at $2.50 and the Labor Party’s at $1.50. So we’ve still got a long way to go to realise any sort of victory in this next election. But to us it’s becoming not just a desire to get into government, but a sense of responsibility that we need to try and secure a victory at the next election because so much long-term damage is being done by the Rudd Government and that has been confirmed again this morning by this scathing attack by a prominent member of the Reserve Bank board.  JOURNALIST: Wilson Tuckey believes the famous victory line was used in yesterday's party room meeting? ANDREW ROBB: It wasn't my recollection of the meeting at all.  I have seen Tony Abbott on his feet so many times now in the last few weeks and he believes we should take confidence out of the way in which we have put pressure on the Government and exposed the many deficiencies and weaknesses especially of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has been seen to be a fraud on so many issues and that’s dangerous, it's dangerous it’s getting into the dangerous category in terms of policy and the running of the country and the impact that's having on future jobs and future prosperity and interest rates, the pressure will continue on interest rates under this Government, there is no doubt about that.  Cost of living is going to be the major issue in the election because we are going to see a series of more interest rate increases over the next 12 months, and it's going to put people in a very difficult situation. JOURNALIST: Should've Tony Abbott have cleared a $710 thousand dollar loan to have paid for his living expenses and his kid's school fees? ANDREW ROBB: Well that is a requirement and I understand it was a simple mistake.  He overlooked it and there's no reason why he wouldn't disclose it unless he'd overlooked it really. I mean, it's neither here nor there, your mortgage situation is something that everyone has got so I would accept totally the fact that he had overlooked it. JOURNALIST: The Government says it's a bad look and shows he's not accountable and can't run the economy. ANDREW ROBB: This is nonsense. This Labor Party has resorted already to just grubby smear campaigns.  Yesterday, Nicola Roxon in the Parliament referred to the mad monk and all of the Catholic followers who are taking this country potentially in the wrong direction, well I am sorry, to resort to sectarian, I mean I thought all that left 20 or 30 years ago the sectarian arguments.  This whole notion of class warfare, they've missed it they’ve missed the mood of the nation altogether.  People are out there, the average person is looking to make a better life for themselves.  Their aspirations, everyone has got whatever opportunity they wish to take, if they set their mind to it.  We don't need a reversion to this class warfare, and this sectarianism and the grubby smear that they are trying to impose on Tony Abbott. You watch, this will be the dirtiest campaign by Labor on record. Their smearing of Tony Abbott will be of monumental proportions because they've got no alternative, they've got no policy to lean back on they have got no record to lean back on. They are a serious threat to the prosperity and jobs of millions of Australians in the years ahead and they will resort to fear and lying in order to maintain their electoral prospects. Andrew Robb Wed, 23 Jun 2010 04:31:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1113 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1112/Appropriation-Bill-No-1-2010-2011-Consideration-in-Detail--Finance-and-Deregulation-Portfolio.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1112 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1112&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1112/Appropriation-Bill-No-1-2010-2011-Consideration-in-Detail--Finance-and-Deregulation-Portfolio.aspx APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 2010-2011 Consideration in Detail June 2010 Finance and Deregulation Portfolio Proposed expenditure, $668,590,000 Mr ANDREW ROBB (Goldstein) (4.33 pm) I am very grateful to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation for agreeing to turn up and answer a few questions. I have no doubt that he will be assiduous in giving answers to the very legitimate questions that I would like to put here today. One of the prime responsibilities of a finance minister is to ensure value for money in the spending of taxpayers’ funds and to ensure that there is no waste and no mismanagement. I refer to the minister’s speech to the Press Club on 8 August 2007 where he seemed to confirm this responsibility. He said: “Every tax dollar the government takes from a family’s bank account is a dollar that can’t be spent on clothes, schoolbooks, groceries or holidays. It’s a dollar that won’t be directly creating jobs in the private sector. When the government takes that dollar, it’s got a responsibility to ensure that it provides value for money in return.” I have a series of questions that I would like to ask which relate to that statement, one I agree very strongly with. Minister, it has been reported in a new book by Lenore Taylor and David Uren, which quotes a Labor insider in relation to stimulus spending—the government taking taxpayers’ dollars and spending them: “Tanner argued vigorously against a spending package … The problem for Tanner was that, while he still needed to be convinced, Rudd and Swan had already decided.” Does the minister still remain opposed to stimulus spending? Is he troubled by the fact that the government is continuing its reckless stimulus spending through until 2011-12 after one quarter of negative growth back in 2008? Furthermore, in overseeing the potential for waste and mismanagement, why is it that under the minister’s watch, Labor’s promised program of computers in schools for every student in years 9 to 12 has so far delivered only 220,000 of the one million computers and a blow-out of $1 billion? Why is it that Labor promised to cut spending in consultancies but have instead awarded $1.2 billion in consultancy contracts since coming to office? Why is it that Labor promised broadband for $4.7 billion but broke that promise, replacing it with a plan for $43 billion, in the process wasting $20 million on a cancelled tender process and spending over $25 million on yet another report by consultants, all for a white elephant that will put up to $43 billion of taxpayers’ money at risk? Mr Tanner interjecting— Mr ROBB It is a question. Mr Tanner interjecting— Mr ROBB I will very happily do that. Why is it that under the school halls stimulus program that is to cost $16.7 billion—some of these numbers should be fairly fixed in your mind, I would have thought—independent assessment has found in at least two or three instances that these school halls cost four times the amount of similar commercial buildings? Why are we seeing billions and billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money potentially wasted? If that were repeated throughout the building phase you would probably be talking about somewhere between $5 billion and $6 billion of the $16.7 billion literally wasted when it could have been done for much less. Also, Minister, why is it that border protection, having seen at least a $1 billion blow-out this year, has an estimate for next year based on an assumption that only 2,000 asylum seekers will arrive over the next 12 months of 2010-11 when 5,500 have arrived to date in this financial year? It is a billion-dollar blow-out in this financial year with 5,500 arrivals, so you can understand the blow-out, but why is it that an assumption of 2,000 arriving next year is then made? (Time expired) Mr TANNER (Melbourne—Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (4.38 pm) I first give a generic answer to the shadow minister’s question. I will endeavour to go through them item by item. Apologies if I miss any; feel free to remind me of them. First, it is correct to say that the Minister for Finance and Deregulation has responsibility that encompasses government waste and use of taxpayers’ money, but that is a responsibility that is shared with other government ministers. As I am sure the shadow minister, as a former minister, would understand, there are things called the Financial Management and Accountability Act and the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act which govern the arrangements that apply here with regard to the responsibilities for managing the spending of government money with respect to both the finance minister and individual ministers. So there is, in effect, a shared responsibility with a specific role for the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, but other ministers also inevitably have responsibilities that are crucial to this overall approach. First with respect to the question arising from the book that he refers to, obviously I do not make public comments about things I am alleged to have said or not said in cabinet or cabinet committee deliberations, and that remains my position. I can only refer him to a quote that I did provide the authors of the book, which was along the lines that I brought to these discussions, as you would expect, a traditional finance minister’s responsibility of seeking to test propositions that were put to me. I would say of any spending proposals that I see that as a central part of my responsibility, to undertake that testing or challenging of any proposals, whether inside committee decision- making processes or indeed matters that are put to me bilaterally by ministers. That is essentially my job. But otherwise I do not comment on the deliberations of cabinet or cabinet committees. With respect to the specific matters that the shadow minister did raise, there are some matters that are more specifically within the purview of individual ministers rather than me as minister for finance. I will endeavour to go through them one by one with that caveat. First on the computers in schools program, as you would be aware, there has been a set of negotiations with state governments about the process. That did lead to some modification compared with the original election commitment. We are fulfilling the election commitment but nonetheless in order to reach agreement with the states there was an additional financial commitment involved there. Second, with respect to consultancies, the statement in the question from the shadow minister is incorrect. In fact, spending on consultancies across the government in calendar year 2008 and again in calendar year 2009 is substantially lower than it was in calendar year 2007 under the Howard government. The fall in expenditure in calendar year 2008 was about $65 million. All these are on-the-record figures and I would suggest that the shadow minister not be misled by highly distorted material that has been published in the Australian. All these things are a matter of public record, that there has been very clear and substantial reduction in spending on consultancies under the Rudd government. Third, on the question of the broadband proposals, the shadow minister will probably recall that the then opposition went to the election with a commitment to a fibre-to-the-node proposal for a broadband network which involved optical fibre going to nodes in individual streets rather than all the way to individual households and businesses. You will be aware that the tender process for that did not produce a successful outcome, partly because it ended up occurring very much at the peak of the global financial crisis and a number of potential bidders were undoubtedly disadvantaged by the fact that the availability of capital for things of this nature was inevitably constrained given the circumstances. The government, confronted with this situation, chose to move in effect to what was always seen as the logical next step, although no previous commitment had been made to do this. The government chose the logical next step of building a fibre-to-the-premises network. (Extension of time granted) On the question of the Building the Education Revolution primary school buildings, I am not aware of the two or three specific instances that the shadow minister alleges that buildings that cost four times the equivalent being built in the private sector were constructed. The shadow minister would be aware that there is currently a taskforce headed by former UBS CEO Brad Orgill examining all of these questions. I am happy to rely on the report that emerges from that taskforce in terms of the issues that have been raised here. We do accept that in a situation where you have got thousands upon thousands of individual projects all around the country the nature of the construction sector is such that every now and then there will be disputes and there will be problems. We regard the prospect that there will be individual issues of this kind as something that is an unavoidable aspect of having so many individual construction projects. We do not necessarily accept some of the assertions that have been published. In my experience, the descriptions that have been published that I have looked at in some detail, almost invariably, have been somewhat at odds with the facts or have been selective in the use of facts. There have been aspects of the picture that have been not been referred to that would clearly modify any reasonable balanced assessment of the claims being made. Finally, I would suggest that the border protection questions are probably better directed to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship because the basis for forward estimates and the numbers of prospective claims is something that is very much a matter for the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. I would also draw the shadow minister’s attention to instances in the past where there have been much smaller estimates put in place that have been, shall we say, out distanced by the actual number of arrivals, instances from the time that the Howard government was in office. I refer him to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship on the question of estimating, for forward estimates purposes, the number of arrivals. Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (4.36 pm)—I will follow a couple of those issues and then move on to some more specific questions. I have sought to follow up with the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. He has said publicly that he has got no idea how many will come next year. I would like to know the rationale behind it. I presume you and your department take some responsibility for ensuring that the numbers make sense and that you can have reasonable confidence in the assumptions. Given that this year there were 5,500 arrivals and a billion dollar blow out, I would be interested to know what process you went through to arrive at a figure of 2,000 for next year. Given that you have had a blow out this year, I would have thought that, conservatively, you would use a higher number or as high a number as this year. If you succeed in reducing the numbers well and good, but the experience to date is there seems to be no evidence of numbers coming back so I would be interested in that process. Secondly, the Building the Education Revolution, as you say, has thousands of different projects but, whether there is one or thousands, it still remains the responsibility of the government to act in a conscientious and prudent way to avoid waste. It seems to me you are really putting the proposition that government, with thousands of projects, cannot be expected to dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t’. Would that be the case? I understand the point you were making that there are joint responsibilities between individual ministers and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. The point of my question was what specifically have you sought to do to rein in what is clearly some of the biggest wastage perhaps in our country’s history of federal government programs including the massive wastage which will end up, no doubt, in billions of dollars with the Home Insulation Program? There have been billions of dollars wasted, on the evidence to date, which seems to me to be a lot more than the occasional problem here and there. What specifically have you done over the last six months when it became patently obvious that there were generic problems in the management of these programs and when those ministers responsible, for whatever reason, were failing to rein in these programs? I would have thought you have a significant responsibility. How did you exercise that responsibility? I would be very interested to know. You made a statement about the $4.7 billion that the program was in prospect and that because of the global financial crisis funds were not available for commercial interests, but you went on to say that, as a result, you went to the next logical step of fibre to the house. Was it always intended that the next logical step would be fibre to the house and that it would involve massive government involvement in the creation of that network, the funding of that network, the operation of that network and, hopefully, the financial return on that network? Was it envisaged that you would in fact renationalise a very big part of telecommunications? Was that the logical next step for the government? As you thought through this program, was that in your head when you went to the last election and promised a broadband network around the country? Is what we are not getting the thing you have always had in mind as the logical next step? On other specific items: on page 84 in Budget Paper No. 2, nearly $1.3 billion was listed as decisions taken but not yet announced over the forward estimates with $50 million listed between 2009-10 and 2010-11. Can you rule out these funds being announced ahead of the federal election? (Time expired) Mr TANNER (Melbourne—Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (4.52 pm)—With respect to the supplementary question asked by the member for Goldstein on matters regarding asylum seekers, I will take that question on notice in order to give him a proper response. Secondly, I do not accept the premise on which his further question about the Building the Education Revolution program was unfolded. So I do not accept his claims with respect to waste. I am afraid that for me to answer the question he asks me about what specifically did I do, that would involve me revealing cabinet discussions and cabinet deliberations, which I am not in a position to do. Penultimately, on the question of the move from a fibre-to-the-node proposal, as put to the election, with the fibre-to-the-home National Broadband Network proposal, when I said that that was seen as a logical next step I did not say that this was seen as a logical next step by a specific party—that is, the federal opposition. This was generally widely in public debates seen as, in effect, a stepping stone. That does not therefore mean that the opposition at the time had any specific subsequent commitment in mind. We were aware of that possibility but we had made no decision about it and had no preconceptions about it. Once the tender process for the fibre-to-the-node proposal failed, we had to give consideration to that possibility along with various other possibilities, but there was no preconceived proposal flowing in the wake of the original election proposal. Finally, on the decisions taken but not yet announced, I am not in a position to rule anything in or out about how those matters are dealt with. Apart from anything else, it is not my responsibility. My responsibility in this regard is simply that these things are accurately recorded in the budget, but I am certainly not in a position to make any statements about when any particular thing will be announced. Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (4.54 pm)—Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the minister: on the last issue that the minister responded to—decisions taken but not yet announced—I ask a supplementary question. Could you confirm, Minister, that the $400 million announced by the Prime Minister on 9 June as part of the renamed Regional Infrastructure Fund was taken from this line item in the budget? I was going to ask you more about the disbursement, but I understand from your earlier answer that you claim not to be in a position to do that. More specifically on some of the other issues: why is it that you and your department are being sidelined regarding the $16.2 billion school halls program after the Deputy Prime Minister established a $14 million task force, which will be led by Mr Brad Orgill, to assess the level of waste under this program? The DEPUTY SPEAKER Again, through the chair to the minister rather than ‘you’ all the time, if you do not mind. That way we can do this formally. Mr ROBB Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. Minister, why is it that you and your department have been sidelined in relation to the investigation into the level of waste and mismanagement under the Building the Education Revolution program? Shouldn’t this have been the job of the minister and the minister’s department? Given also that the department of finance is responsible for sustainable government finances, does the minister think that the Building the Education Revolution was value for money and good policy? Given that Australia recorded one quarter of negative growth in 2008, why is it that $500 million of the stimulus funding under the Building the Education Revolution program will be spent in 2011-12 at a time when real GDP growth is forecast to be four per cent and CPI at 2.5 per cent, and this following six consecutive interest rate rises which have added between $4,000 to $5,000 to the average home mortgage? Furthermore, what role did the minister perform in relation to developing the Home Insulation Program? When did the minister first become aware of the problems with this program? What is the total figure that this program will cost the budget? Has the minister costed inspecting every one of the million or so homes that have received insulation as part of this program, given the ongoing problem with fires that often occur in homes that have been ruled as not needing any particular attention? Has the minister assessed the total financial liability of the Commonwealth under this program? Minister, given that the department of finance is responsible for sustainable government finances, do you think the Home Insulation Program was value for money and good policy? Furthermore, Minister, in the 2010-11 budget papers, you claim $17 billion of new taxes as savings. Can you please clarify these statements and the metrics that the government uses in classifying new taxes as savings? Finally, do you envisage spending the remaining $700 million left in the Building Australia Fund over the coming months? Mr TANNER (Melbourne—Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (4.59 pm) Firstly, I stand by all of the government’s stimulus measures. While the government have acknowledged that there have been specific problems in the Home Insulation Program, we have acted to deal with those problems. I will take on notice the question about the cost to the budget of the Home Insulation Program. As to the question of Commonwealth liability, it is my responsibility with respect to any prospective legal proceedings that may be issued against the Commonwealth—be they about this or any other matter—to effectively present reporting in the budget about risks, in the statement of risk, and also to oversight those potential liabilities. I am continuing to do that in this and other areas. The questions relating to my role in developing the program and the points at which I became aware of the problems I referred to are matters that relate to cabinet deliberations, which I am not at liberty to reveal. As to the question suggesting that my department was sidelined from the process of the examination of problems or alleged problems in the Building the Education Revolution, my answer to that is that my department was not sidelined. It is a perfectly normal and legitimate thing, where an issue emerges in a particular portfolio, for the minister of that portfolio to initiate some kind of arms-length or independent examination of that—and that is not conducted by the Department of Finance and Administration. For obvious reasons, the situation of having one arm of government investigating another arm of government would give rise to accusations that this was not a genuine independent or arms-length examination of the problems. It is a perfectly normal situation under governments of both persuasions that, if there is to be some examination of this kind, one option is to have an inquiry or a task force of the kind which has been established. As to the question of why there would still be $500 million of stimulus budgeted for the 2011-12 financial year, I suspect the answer to that question is that, inevitably, projects occur over an extended period of time. You obviously do not pay the entire cost of a project upfront. Typically, particularly with more substantial projects, there will be milestone payments and there will be payments at the completion of the project, as well as the payments at various stages along the line. I suspect you will find that that $500 million essentially reflects that pattern. Of course, it will reflect, retrospectively, private sector activity that has occurred in the preceding period. The question of the decision regarding $400 million of infrastructure assistance for Western Australia was an item in the category of decisions taken but not yet announced. I can confirm that. I am not in a position to make any statements about when the remaining funds in either the Building Australia Fund or any of the other funds will be disbursed. That is not a decision I take unilaterally, obviously. I am not in a position to respond to that. Apologies, I am just looking through my scribbled notes to make sure that I have covered— Mr Robb The Home Insulation Program? Mr TANNER Yes, I have responded to those questions. Mr Robb The savings question? Mr TANNER Sorry, yes. All of this is disclosed. The generic term ‘savings’ is used to describe improvements in the net bottom line to the budget. You will see this broken down into ‘revenue’ and ‘spending’ items in all of the three budgets. There is a table that aggregates all of this where it is broken down into spending and revenue items in all of the three budgets. (Time expired) Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (5.45 pm) Just last month in his Razor’s Edge blog the minister wrote: “But I am a bit of a romantic on this, I think elections are largely determined by how well they think the Government is governing, not on how many fistfuls of cash they pump on election eve.” Minister, given your responsibility for stopping waste and mismanagement, it has been reported that a staggering $220 million of non-road, non-rail stimulus funding has been pumped into your own electorate of Melbourne, with a further $15 million in non-stimulus grants earmarked for the seat. Mr Tanner You’re even dumber than I thought you were! Mr ROBB Do we need gratuitous insults across the chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker? Mr Hockey Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask the minister to withdraw that remark. Mr Tanner Madam Deputy Speaker, I am happy to withdraw. The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms JA Saffin) The remark has been withdrawn. Member for Goldstein, please proceed. Mr ROBB This is a serious issue. It is not an issue to be laughed at and to abuse other people about. It is a very legitimate question. If nearly a quarter of a billion dollars is being spent in the electorate of the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, a minister who has made his reputation on the back of anti-rorting statements Mr Tanner Yes, yes, I’m going to answer your question. Mr ROBB Do I need prompting as well, Madam Deputy Speaker? The DEPUTY SPEAKER We are not so sensitive in here that we cannot take a bit of banter across the table. Mr ROBB Okay. ‘A bit of banter’. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is a very good ruling! Minister, are you cynically giving the nod to the funnelling of taxpayers’ millions into your own electorate with an eye to your own electoral skin? Furthermore, following the budget the finance minister said ‘the coalition’s debt and deficit campaign is dead’. Minister, can you please justify this statement considering that the budget deficit—not that we heard much about it on the night of the budget—is $57 billion for 2009-10 and, if all of the rosy assumptions come to be, is forecast to be $40.8 billion in 2010-11? The point of my question is that $57 billion is the largest deficit in our history by a country mile and $40 billion, if it comes to pass, will be the second-biggest deficit in our country’s history. I would like the minister to explain how he can say that the debate about debt and deficit is dead when the government, with a budget approved by the minister, will have to borrow $700 million a week for the next two years to pay for the continued spending. As well, can the minister confirm that the interest on net government debt in 2010-11 will be $4.6 billion and that net government debt is forecast to peak at $93.7 billion in 2011-12? Can the minister confirm that the forecasted interest repayment on this amount is $6.5 billion? I also refer to the $10 billion super hit for small business. I refer to the proposal to lift the compulsory employer superannuation contribution from nine per cent to 12, which will cost small business $10 billion a year. Three months ago, when asked by Ross Greenwood whether future compulsory superannuation increases would come at the expense of wage increases, the minister clearly said: … “the fact that your employer is forced to put in an extra three per cent in your super means that money that otherwise could have gone into your wages, is going into your super basically.” When, subsequent to that announcement, the minister’s own words were read back to him in a radio interview on 4BC, the minister said he had been seriously misrepresented, but he finally conceded: “Yes, it will have an impact on the dollar increase for some workers.” On multiple occasions the minister has conceded that the compulsory increases in employer superannuation will come at the expense of wage increases. Why then, when pressed in different forums, has the minister claimed not to have said this? (Time expired) Mr TANNER (Melbourne—Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (5.09 pm) First, with respect to matters regarding my own electorate, the amount of stimulus spending in my electorate relative to other nearby electorates varies in one respect only, and that is with respect to social housing. If you look at all of the items listed in stimulus measures in my electorate, you will see that, whether it is Building the Education Revolution or other areas of stimulus, broadly it is pretty much the same as in the equivalent electorates. There is only one difference; it is social housing. I wonder why that would be. Guess what—the answer is because that is where the social housing is. I have in my electorate the largest number of public tenants in Victoria. The number is, I understand, something like 2½ times the number in the next highest electorate. It is unavoidable that, where you have a stimulus strategy that includes major measures to upgrade social housing, it is not going to be distributed evenly across all electorates, as, for example, the Building the Education Revolution funding is distributed evenly because the number of primary schools or primary schoolkids is going to be fairly similar across individual electorates. The key answer to the shadow minister’s question is: were the stimulus to have been about upgrading yacht clubs then there probably would have been a disproportionate investment in his electorate, but, because the government made a decision to upgrade social housing, that meant that a disproportionate amount of that money was inevitably spent in my electorate. Finally, on this point I might indicate that the actual decisions with respect to the location of spending, the decisions about individual projects, were decisions in which I played no role. These were matters worked out with the Victorian government by the Minister for Housing, and these were decisions in which I had no role. As someone representing an electorate that is not quite inner city but is not far there from, I would suggest to the shadow minister that the notion that the construction of additional housing of any kind, particularly higher density housing, in the inner city is the pathway to electoral popularity is a proposition that you will not find many serious political analysts able to support. Amongst other things, I find it amusing that people think that I regard this as a pathway to winning support in my electorate. In fact, I support it because it is the right thing to do for a large group of people who traditionally have been neglected and ignored by successive Liberal governments who have dramatically cut funding for social housing over the years and who have refused to invest in them. These are people who are on very low incomes, who are very disadvantaged and who we believe are entitled, along with everybody else, to reasonable living circumstances. Secondly, I am asked why I made the statement that the opposition’s debt and deficit scare campaign is dead. Notwithstanding the campaign that we have had regarding tax reform from the opposition, there have been numerous questions in the last few weeks in question time about a variety of other subjects and I do not recall any questions about this particular subject. The evidence that your scare campaign is dead is actually out of your own mouths. The other evidence is that Australia’s debt level is projected to peak at around six per cent of GDP, in a world where other major countries have debt levels that are heading towards 80 per cent or 100 per cent of GDP. Any serious economist does not regard your campaign seriously and regards it as the complete joke that it is. That is why you have dropped off it completely. I have answered your question. I have answered why you have dropped your debt and deficit campaign—because even you realise it is totally idiotic. That is the answer to your question. Mr Robb The highest ever is ‘idiotic’! Mr TANNER Your campaign is idiotic. (Extension of time granted) On the questions with respect to debt interest, I refer the member for Goldstein to the budget papers. Finally, on the question of statements I have made with respect to the impact of increases in the superannuation guarantee on wages, I will repeat the statements I made on 4BC to try to explain the difference. It is the difference between nominal wages— Mr Robb That was very embarrassing. Mr TANNER You whinged before; how about shutting up now? I will repeat my statements, and I will make them slowly and in words of limited syllables so that, hopefully, this time the member for Goldstein might understand them. Perhaps when you get an opportunity you might stand up and see whether you can explain your version of what the difference between nominal and real wages means. That would be enlightening for all of us. On the difference between nominal and real wages, the point that I was making in the initial interview, conducted by Ross Greenwood, was about nominal wages and the perception by individual workers that an increase would involve loss of nominal wages. The question I was asked on Q&A, not on radio, referred to real wages. There will not be— Mr Hockey What? Mr TANNER That is correct. If you look at the transcript, you will see the term ‘real wages’. If you look at the government’s proposals, what you will see is that, in any given year, the increase in the superannuation guarantee is no higher than 0.5 per cent. In other words, it is expected that real wages will continue to increase, because typically the real wage increases are significantly above that and the historic trend is that and we anticipate that real wages will increase at a higher level than those rates. So real wages will not be cut; real wages will not be reduced. That is precisely why I did not accept the interpretation being put to me on Q&A about that statement, and I stand by all of that. Yet again, the people who opposed occupational superannuation in the 1980s are going to be opposing it now and they are going to continue opposing it. Why? I say it is because it benefits ordinary working people. Why do they oppose occupational superannuation? It is because when we took office in 1983 superannuation was the privilege of the rich, the well-heeled, whom the Liberal Party are interested in supporting. What Labor did in office was extend access to superannuation to ordinary working people. What we are now proposing to do is to strengthen that access to superannuation for ordinary working people. That is why you do not like it and that is why you are opposing it, along with cutting company tax and along with improving the tax provisions for small business. You are opposing it because, ultimately, you are on about the well-off. You are on about the well-heeled in this society, not ordinary working people. Yet again you will oppose the extension of greater superannuation to the ordinary working people of this country. That is the issue here. The government is resolutely committed to delivering this improvement in superannuation and retirement incomes for ordinary working people and strengthening the investment pool which, amongst other things, helped save Australia from the global financial crisis and helped protect Australia’s economy during that time. Any serious player in financial markets will tell you that, because there was a guaranteed automatic pool of billions of dollars coming into the markets, no matter what occurred internationally, from that occupational superannuation arrangement. That is why the government remains resolutely committed to improving occupational superannuation in this country: because it improves the retirement incomes of working people, for whom the Liberal Party has never done a jot, and because it improves the investment savings pool that will be invested in the long-term economic growth for the future of Australia. That is why we remain committed to this proposition, and that is why you oppose it—and no amount of sophistry and misrepresentation and verballing about things that I have said will change any of those things. (Time expired) Ms Hall Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The time for this debate has well and truly expired and I would like to draw your attention to that. Andrew Robb Tue, 22 Jun 2010 03:56:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1112 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1109/Transcript-of-the-Hon-Andrew-Robb-AO-MP-Interview-with-Jon-Faine-ABC-Melbourne.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1109 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1109&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1109/Transcript-of-the-Hon-Andrew-Robb-AO-MP-Interview-with-Jon-Faine-ABC-Melbourne.aspx Topics: Labor’s reckless NBN proposal E&OE JON FAINE:   Andrew Robb, good morning to you. ANDREW ROBB: Good morning Jon. JON FAINE: Your party has been critical of the prospect of a deal. Now there is the reality of a deal, do you support what’s been done? ANDREW ROBB: No we don’t. Our view is the project itself in toto, whether with Telstra a deal was involved, or whether it wasn’t, is going to be ultimately a massive and hugely expensive white elephant and will lead to higher prices because of less innovation and ultimately, probably tens-of-billions-of-dollars of taxpayer debt that will have to be paid off. JON FAINE: What’s a white elephant about wiring up the nation for the fastest broadband we can get? ANDREW ROBB: Well the thing is Jon, it won’t be available for probably six or seven years to start with. It is overwhelmingly the most dynamic area of innovation and new technology across any sector in the economy. So it’s the most dynamic area and here we are putting at risk $43 billion of taxpayers’ money and in many respects this is going back to the future. We had Telstra with a fixed line monopoly of copper all over the country and now it is just going to go back to a Government-owned monopoly of fixed lines at a time when there’s a staggering trend towards wireless technology. JON FAINE: But wireless technology, as I understand it, and I don’t pretend to be an expert on this, does not do the same thing as a fibre optic cable network. ANDREW ROBB: Well no it doesn’t at the moment, but people want mobility, so who knows in six or seven years, and what’s being risked is an investment of, a $43 billion investment of taxpayers’ money, not private sector money, taxpayers’ money. JON FAINE: Well no, Telstra is a private sector company and they’ve got into bed on this, if Telstra shared your views on this they wouldn’t have done this deal, would they? ANDREW ROBB: No, no, Jon, it was a Clayton’s agreement. The Government for a year now has had a gun to the head of Telstra. If they didn’t cooperate and come to some deal, then they would be forced into structural separation, which they saw would commercially disadvantage them and see Telstra share prices, which already collapsed, go down even further. So Telstra in many respects have sought to make the best of a bad situation and take the money and that’s what’s happened. And that won’t even be settled for 12 months; this has been going for four years now and they promised the system would be rolling out. JON FAINE: Well Andrew Robb, the alternative scenario is that these have been protracted negotiations, where billions-of-dollars are involved; the Government has timed this exquisitely. Last week they stitch up a deal on parental leave, this week national broadband network, next week parliament will rise and they’ll do a deal on the mining tax and then bang into July and August you’ll have a federal election. ANDREW ROBB: And on all fronts a disaster Jon, that’s my view. This is a very bad investment. We are the only country I know in the world that is looking to re-nationalise or to go back to a situation where you’ve got a government-owned monopoly in telecommunications. It is such a dynamic area of technological advancement and innovation, that to risk taxpayers’ money in an area that is just galloping in terms of new technology; the i-phones the i-pads. You know, an electrician who’s got bills to pay and new quotes to put through, wants to do it in his truck between jobs. JON FAINE: That’s right. So you have an optical fibre cable system with wireless nodes, this is the future, but you don’t have everything wireless, you have wireless hot spots and zones that feed off the optical cable. ANDREW ROBB: They’ll feed off, but if you put the backbone around the country, that’s about a $4 billion investment. You put a backbone to every sort of corner of the country, that’s not expensive; the private sector could then feed off that back bone very effectively, but what we’ve got is the Government putting a backbone, but then putting fibre into every household the seven million households. This is going to cost an absolute fortune. It’s got nothing to do, that has got nothing to do with mobile technology coming off the fibre or the backbone. JON FAINE: Also, Andrew Robb, we’ve only got a moment until the news. Your opposition to each of these issues that I’ve mentioned to you, interesting to reflect, although the prime minister wouldn’t be happy with the latest Newspoll, I suspect your side of politics would be no happier either, with primary vote for the Coalition declining since the last poll. ANDREW ROBB: Well, it fell one point so, but look the bottom line is Jon, the reason that the government’s in trouble is because we have started to keep this government accountable on things like broadband, on things like the mining tax and on many other projects, the emissions trading scheme and the prime minister’s been unable to explain to the Australian people why these things are a good thing. That’s what’s hurting him. If we keep them accountable, the polls will look after themselves. JON FAINE: Thank you for your time. Andrew Robb, the Shadow Minister for Finance.   Andrew Robb Mon, 21 Jun 2010 02:40:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1109 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1108/Coalition-Will-Fund-Councils-Directly.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1108 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1108&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1108/Coalition-Will-Fund-Councils-Directly.aspx A Coalition Government will cut out the state government middle man and fund councils directly, Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction, Andrew Robb, today told The National General Assembly of Local Government. Delivering a speech on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Robb said: “We will continue the reforms we began between 1996-2007 which gave local government unprecedented recognition and direct funding to fulfil councils’ core responsibilities. “In office we will take the next step. So today I want to announce that the Coalition will take action to fund councils directly.  We will cut out the ‘middle man’ of state governments which get in the way of efficient spending at the local level. “The shift toward direct funding will be part of a broader policy to place local government on a more sustainable financial footing,” Mr Robb said. At the Assembly Mr Robb also put Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese on notice over dishonest claims he has made in relation to the future of the successful Roads to Recovery Program under a Coalition Government. “We remain 100 per cent committed to the program. In fact we are going to go further than just maintain Roads to Recovery, we are going to expand it,” Mr Robb said. “I wholeheartedly endorse Warren Truss’s announcement this morning that a Coalition Government will expand the program to include bridges. This will cost an additional $300 million over four years,” he said. “Mr Albanese has been running a grubby and desperate local newspaper campaign, claiming that I have privately said the Coalition would fund new initiatives from Roads to Recovery funding, which is completely and utterly false. “The claims are designed to cause anxiety among local government and local communities. I have this message for Mr Albanese – the Coalition will rebut his dishonest claims in the strongest possible way wherever they are repeated,” Mr Robb said.  Media Contact: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Thu, 17 Jun 2010 05:13:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1108 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1107/Transcript-of-the-Hon-Andrew-Robb-AO-MP-Interview-with-Ross-Greenwood-2GB-Money-News.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1107 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1107&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1107/Transcript-of-the-Hon-Andrew-Robb-AO-MP-Interview-with-Ross-Greenwood-2GB-Money-News.aspx Topics: Labor’s great big new tax on mining, taxation reform, Kevin Rudd’s authority challenged  E&OE ROSS GREENWOOD: Shadow Finance Minister Andrew Robb with us now. Hello Andrew. ANDREW ROBB: G’day Ross, nice to be here. ROSS GREENWOOD: First things first, it does appear as though the Government has got a problem on its hands. It can’t change that tax without putting a hole in its budget. If it puts a hole in its budget, its whole prospect of suggesting that they’re going to be able to pay off the debt in seven years and get back into budget surplus in three years, start being shot and falling apart. ANDREW ROBB: There’s no doubt about that Ross. The government has totally snookered itself I think on this issue. They are caught either way. If they do what they should do and that is scrap it, because it’s madness in terms of the future of our economy and our greatest economic strength is being taxed in this way to make us uncompetitive. I mean people overseas just can’t believe what’s going on here. If they scrap it, they’ve got a huge hole in their budget and they’ll have to have a mini budget. If they don’t scrap it then they’ve got a real issue with our competitive position; the loss of hundreds-of-thousands-of-jobs over the next 20 years and billions of investment. So either way, they’ve got one hell of a problem. ROSS GREENWOOD: It seems when you get a problem like this, they should be actually pushing it out to a committee trying to get it on the backburners, so they can get to the election as quick as they can. There’s not too many committees at the moment they can push it out to. ANDREW ROBB: Well look, they at least could have had it considered constructively by cabinet. That’s a committee. I could guarantee to you, that 95 per cent of the cabinet read about this when you read about it. I know this for a fact, people have been privately saying out of cabinet, to others that they read about it and some of these people have got a vested interest in their portfolio responsibility. This was clearly policy on-the-run. This was Kevin Rudd with a problem with his budget. This is Kevin Rudd who everyone thinks is a jelly back because of his back-flips on the emissions trading scheme and a whole host of other things. He sought to buy a fight and you could tell that from the language he used from the moment he announced this thing. He wanted to buy a fight with the top end of town to show that he was a man of steel and that’s why they want this thing to go on for 12 months. So it can go through an election and he can look like he’s standing up to the robber barons as he terms them. This is playing politics in the most cynical way with the future of the country; he deserves not to be Prime Minister on this issue alone. ROSS GREENWOOD: But one point about this, is the Opposition, your party, has indicated that this tax will not come in any way shape of form. Do you stand by that? ANDREW ROBB: Absolutely … ROSS GREENWOOD: But hang on a minute, the miners themselves Andrew, the miners themselves wanted reform of this. The miners themselves had before hand approached the Federal Government to say look the current state-based system of royalties does not work. It is not the most efficient system, it is flawed and we want that changed. So what you are saying is you are not committed to the reform of something the miners themselves have sought change for. ANDREW ROBB: At this stage, what Kevin Rudd is putting up; there’s two points here Ross and you are making valid points about the theory of this. Firstly, Kevin Rudd said, and we agreed with it, he said over the last two years, as has Wayne Swan, that if we are to have tax reform and there is plenty to reform within our tax system, if we are to have tax reform, it has to be done in a total fashion. That’s why he got the Henry Review to look across taxation in Australia, so that he could take a total view of things and not do something piecemeal, well this is a very piecemeal approach, totally piecemeal approach and it’s not reform, it’s a tax grab. See if it was reform, they would have just brought it in at a level which just would have replaced the revenue that’s coming from the royalties. ROSS GREENWOOD: But even some of the miners have acknowledged that as part of that reform of the royalties system they probably can pay a higher degree of tax, a greater share of taxation as a result of the improvement in the mining industry over a period of time. ANDREW ROBB: Well the royalty system allows for that. I mean while we’ve been having this debate over the last five weeks, the Western Australian government has increased the royalty by $300 million and the NSW government this week increased the royalty by 85 per cent, which is about $1 billion. So from about $900 million to I think about $1.8 (billion), it’s $980 million now I think for the NSW royalties that they get and they’ve increased it by 85 per cent. So there is a capacity already in terms of paying more tax, but the miners you will recall, made that request and put that opinion, that it could be improved, but in the context of an economy-wide review of taxation … ROSS GREENWOOD: Sure, but what I’m saying is though, is your party itself has always long been committed to tax reform, you right now have almost said steadfastly we will not change the mining tax. But what you are also saying to me here is that you would review the mining tax if you came to office because you would actually look to review the way in which these royalties work. ANDREW ROBB: We would only look at this tax, not in a piecemeal fashion like it has been put up, it’s just a tax grab, it’s not reform; we would look at taxation across the board and in that context we would look at what the miners have said and others have said in terms of improving the royalties system, whatever, but we will take this in a total sense. You will recall, that the commission of inquiry that the Rudd government set up and said must be followed in terms of an overall look at taxation, came up with 138 recommendations, Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan picked two-and-a-half of those, one of which they did the opposite of what the Henry Review said, the other one hundred and thirty five-and-a-half were put aside. So this is clearly just an attempt to raise money because of the hole in their budget and you know I think you can observe that this has been a deliberate exercise to get under the skin of these mining companies and create some sort of conflict to change the image of the Prime Minister. It is a totally political exercise this and in that context we’re not going to be drawn into some academic debate by the government about the merit of reform, when they are not reforming, they are just looking for more taxation … ROSS GREENWOOD: So what you are saying is if you were to win the next election you would pick up the Henry Review, blow the dust off it and potentially implement more than four of the 138 recommendations … ANDREW ROBB: Absolutely, absolutely, it’s our intention to have a wide-ranging look, there are lots of interesting things in that report, though there’s none of the workings, so it’s very hard to see how it falls out in terms of fairness and efficiency and all the rest. ROSS GREENWOOD: And given that Ken Henry is certainly public enemy number one according to Andrew ‘Twiggy’ Forrest, in what sort of esteem is he held by the Coalition, given of course that he was also the secretary of Treasury when you were in government as well? ANDREW ROBB: The thing is, our fight is with the government, I mean I think Ken Henry is a servant of the government, he does what he is asked to do by the government and we’re certainly not going to be drawn into, again by the government, who keep trailing their coat on this, we are not going to be drawn into commenting on their public servants. They’re doing their job for the government at the beck and call of the government; our problem and I think the problem that many Australians should have is with the way in which Kevin Rudd is a one man band. You saw this with the illuminating interview that you ran at the start of this with Simon Crean. I think, it’s by far, the first perhaps major split that we’re seeing in the cabinet. Mr Rudd’s authority is being challenged. Simon Crean’s experienced, he knows what he’s doing, he needn’t have made those comments and I think it’s about time his cabinet started to challenge him, he is a one man band and Australia is suffering as a consequence. I bet Simon knew nothing about this policy and yet he’s the Trade Minister, until he read it in the paper.     ROSS GREENWOOD: Andrew Robb, Shadow Finance Minister many thanks for joining us here on Money News. ANDREW ROBB: My pleasure, thanks Ross. Andrew Robb Wed, 16 Jun 2010 23:08:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1107 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1103/Transcript-of-the-Hon-Andrew-Robb-AO-MP-Interview-with-Derryn-Hinch-3AW-Drive.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1103 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1103&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1103/Transcript-of-the-Hon-Andrew-Robb-AO-MP-Interview-with-Derryn-Hinch-3AW-Drive.aspx Topics: Lindsay Tanner’s pork barrelling, opinion polls. E&OE Derryn Hinch: Andrew Robb, good afternoon Andrew Robb: Good afternoon Derryn. Derryn Hinch: Now there’s pork barrelling in both parties, your party has done it in the past, you’re well aware of it, but boy this one’s a doozy. Andrew Robb: Well it is a doozy and you’ve got to look at who they are doing it for, who’s done it to himself. It’s the man who probably made his reputation over the years in opposing rorting and pork barrelling. He was the man who was always looking across the chamber in a very sanctimonious way, giving us a big lecture and he’s the man responsible, in part with Swan, for a $57 billion deficit. He’s out there telling everybody, mums and dads, to tighten their belts and here he is, because he’s worrying about the Greens taking his seat, in probably one of the biggest pork barrelling exercises we’ve ever seen. Derryn Hinch: Yes, the words have been spelled out by the Sunday Herald Sun in some detail, and a lot of it I must say, to me seems indefensible. Andrew Robb: Well, they put it, I understand it, all of that detail to Tanner’s office, to Lindsay’s office, and asked would they, could he, would he explain and they just got back the message ‘no thanks’. So here he is 24 hours later, we’ve heard nothing from him and I think he has to front and put the case. Because as I say, we’ve got the Government, who’s built a mountain of debt and he’s been out there telling people to be sensible and pull their belts in and yet for crass political purposes he’s showing the hypocrisy. This Government, I tell you, it has sort of lost the plot in lots of ways. There seems to be a sense of panic running through everybody, including people like Lindsay, who has a strong reputation. Derryn Hinch: Yes, he does have a strong reputation. One other point though is that you can’t all gloat too much. Kevin Rudd’s down, Labor is down, the Coalition’s ahead, but Tony Abbott’s personal polling has also dropped, they’re not convinced, although they’re no overly happy with Mr Rudd, they’re not overly happy with your leader either. Andrew Robb: Well, we’ve always thought this is very difficult to get up on, this one Derryn. We will fight it as hard as we can, but it has been 80 years since a first term Government, so people will make a judgement. But I’ve known Tony for a long time now and he’s what you see is what you get, he’s real. He’s decisive, he says it as he sees it and I think people will see that, compared with, they are still asking after three years in Government just what does Mr Rudd stand for? Where would he take us? Where are his principles? At the moment I think people are really disenchanted with the fact Kevin Rudd doesn’t seem to stand for anything. Andrew Robb Tue, 08 Jun 2010 03:05:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1103 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1102/Albanese-Stoops-to-New-Lows.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1102 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1102&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1102/Albanese-Stoops-to-New-Lows.aspx Kevin Rudd’s Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese has been caught out telling a deliberate lie in seeking to mislead the 93,000 voters of the Corangamite electorate and councils across the country in relation to road funding. Mr Albanese falsely claimed in a media release (26 May 2010) that when asked by the Geelong Advertiser and the Colac Herald how the opposition would fund the duplication of the Princes Highway between Winchelsea and Colac, Shadow Finance Minister Andrew Robb,  “privately told the two publications that the Opposition would fund this project out of the Roads to Recovery budget.” This is impossible because of the fact that Mr Robb has not spoken directly to either of these newspapers regarding this issue. When asked for comments from the Geelong Advertiser and the Colac Herald, the following statement was provided: “Mr Albanese has issued a number of misleading and disingenuous media statements making completely false allegations regarding supposed Coalition commitments. “This worthy project like many across the country is still under serious consideration by the Coalition against the backdrop of the Rudd Labor Government’s billions of dollars of waste and mismanagement, continued reckless spending and massive debt.” Mr Albanese has been caught out lying in a bid to save Labor’s political skin and to create anxiety in the local government sector over the future of critical Roads to Recovery funding. “This is a senior minister who is politically panic-stricken and who has resorted to saying and doing anything to mislead voters and local government,” Mr Robb said. “Instead of engaging in gutter politics, Mr Albanese as minister for infrastructure, should have been preventing the billions that have been wasted by Labor on school halls, insulation and the like. “If Mr Albanese had been doing his day job properly, he would now have $6-8 billion that could have been spent on road infrastructure,” Mr Robb said. Media Contact: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521   Andrew Robb Tue, 08 Jun 2010 03:02:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1102 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1101/Tanner-Must-Explain-Funding-Splurge-in-his-Own-Electorate.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1101 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1101&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1101/Tanner-Must-Explain-Funding-Splurge-in-his-Own-Electorate.aspx Mr Rudd’s Finance Minister, Lindsay Tanner, has shown how much this Government has “lost the plot”, with nearly quarter-of-a-billion of taxpayer dollars being pumped into his electorate in a desperate bid to head off the threat of losing to the Greens. “Mr Tanner must come out from hiding today and give a full and frank explanation as to why his electorate has received nearly twice as much as any other Victorian electorate,” Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction, Andrew Robb said. It has been reported that a staggering $220 million in non-road and rail stimulus funding has been pumped into Mr Tanner's own electorate of Melbourne, with a further $15 million non-stimulus grants earmarked for the seat. When asked to confirm and explain the numbers Mr Tanner's office reportedly said: "No thanks.” Mr Robb said this is simply not good enough and that Mr Tanner must explain to Australian taxpayers why he has no qualms pork barrelling in his own electorate, particularly after taking the moral high-ground on this issue when in opposition. "Lindsay Tanner, more than anyone, made his reputation screaming from the roof tops in opposition to rorting and pork barrelling; like Mr Rudd, he's an absolute hypocrite,” Mr Robb said. Just last month in his ‘Razor’s Edge’ blog Mr Tanner wrote:  “I am a bit of a romantic … I think elections are largely determined by how well they think the Government is governing, not on how many fistfuls of cash they pump on election eve.” What a joke. As Finance Minister, Mr Tanner's primary responsibility is to ensure taxpayers' money is not wasted and that they get value-for-money from Government spending. “Lindsay Tanner has monumentally failed on both counts, having presided over the disastrous $2.45 billion insulation debacle and $6-8 billion of waste associated with Julia Gillard’s botched school hall funding splurge,” Mr Robb said.  "This bloke gives finance ministers a bad name. Wasted and borrowed billions, all approved by him. And now we know Mr Tanner is cynically giving the nod for the funnelling of taxpayers' millions into his own electorate, in a bid to save his own political skin," he said. Media Contact: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521. Andrew Robb Mon, 07 Jun 2010 01:54:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1101 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1100/Opinion-Piece-A-Safe-Pair-of-Hands-Needed.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1100 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1100&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1100/Opinion-Piece-A-Safe-Pair-of-Hands-Needed.aspx From: The Australian June 03, 2010 12:00AM AFTER three years of governing, it is extraordinary that people still ask of Kevin Rudd: "What do you really stand for?" There is no sense that he has a plan to protect and expand the economy. The Coalition is determined to offer a clear alternative. We need to rebuild the economic resilience the Rudd government inherited if we are to rebuild business and consumer confidence and weather any new global financial crisis. We need to bring down debt, embark on a productivity-based growth strategy, stop the reckless spending, lock in budget surpluses, rein in make-work projects that add nothing to productivity growth and protect the safe haven reputation for global investment that we have enjoyed for 30 years. Wealth is best created when people and organisations are empowered to maximise their potential, go with their strengths, take risks, take responsibility for their own decisions and actions. Labor does not understand this. Rather, for it, government knows best, and if you see a problem, throw our money at it, even if it is borrowed. Our economic road map features smaller government with a greater reliance on the private sector and individual initiative. It also features a flexible, fair and internationally competitive tax system for business and individuals, with flatter and lower levels of income taxation as well as fairer and more flexible workplaces, where real wage increases can be expected. Labor's reckless spending continues, putting pressure on interest rates and leading to six rate rises in a row. Australia is paying the price through a $57 billion deficit and debt approaching $130bn once the broadband billions are borrowed. There is government borrowing of $700 million a week for the next two years, multi-billion-dollar interest repayments for years to come, six interest rate increases in a row and much greater vulnerability for all of us if the world experiences a double-dip recession. Households that took out a typical mortgage last year arenow paying $4000 to $5000 a year more in loan repayments, resulting in enormous cost of living pressures. This reckless stimulus spending, a response to one-quarter of negative growth in the December quarter of 2008, is programmed to continue until 2012, four years after the GFC. It makes no sense. Already we have announced $22bn of capital account savings that will come straight off the Rudd government's projected debt. In addition, we have announced detailed cuts to 39 Rudd government spending programs, totalling $24.7bn. This is an unprecedented pre-election commitment. We also must not squander the financial benefits that will flow from the demand from China in the immediate future. We must not be lulled into adopting the naive Rudd government assumption that the commodities boom will continue indefinitely. There is a four or five-year window in which to capture many new resource projects that will benefit Australia for 30, 40 or 50 years. If we don't capture this opportunity we will have missed the boat. This is why the Rudd government's introduction of a deeply flawed and onerous 40 per cent resources rent tax in the middle of all this is so stupid. Big resource companies have many options. Companies are extremely sensitive to the relative taxation positions between countries. The brutal and personal political attacks by the government on this important export industry and its leaders, combined with the naive and dangerous design of the tax and the deliberate failure to consult, have left Australian business and overseas investors bewildered. Business confidence in the government has been shattered. In particular, optimism that once surrounded the Prime Minister is rapidly fading. Ronald Reagan said government's view of the economy could be summed up: "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidise it." Rudd's approach can be summed up: if money has been saved, spend it; if an industry is profitable and successful, tax it; if it questions or opposes you, vilify it. This is not reform. It is governing by the news cycle. What if we have another three years like the last? Australia needs clear policies, but also the resolve to see them through. And the strength to say no, a word foreign to Rudd, Wayne Swan and Lindsay Tanner. Andrew Robb is opposition finance spokesman. Andrew Robb Thu, 03 Jun 2010 02:34:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1100 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1099/Transcript-of-the-Hon-Andrew-Robb-AO-MP-Doorstop-Interview.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1099 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1099&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1099/Transcript-of-the-Hon-Andrew-Robb-AO-MP-Doorstop-Interview.aspx Topis: Labor’s great big new tax on mining E&OE ANDREW ROBB: I’d just like to make some comments if I could on the work by KMPG that was released this morning. I think this analysis of the impact of Mr Rudd’s great big new tax makes a total mockery of one, the budget, it shows it to be a house of cards, and two, the rhetoric and the attacks and the vilification, that’s been undertaken by the Government. In my view, there is no confidence now in the revenue numbers in the budget. What will it do to the $12 billion that’s projected revenue in the last two years of the forward estimates? It suggests there’s no straight forward surplus. And I do think, it also shows, that the Government’s claims that the industry’s paying 17 per cent tax are just absurd. The Government, off the back of a graduate studies work from North Carolina, ran around saying that the industry was paying 17 per cent tax. When in fact, it’s been confirmed this morning, it’s of the order of 40 per cent on average, and it will go to 55 per cent. So what it means is that the industry is now paying 33 per cent more than every other company in Australia, as it should, it’s a fair share, I think. But it will go to over 90 per cent more tax than every other industry in Australia. And that’s just going to make us uncompetitive, put thousands of people out of work, and we’ll lose many, many projects, billions and billions of dollars of projects in the years ahead. JOURNALIST: Why should we believe this modelling by KMPG opposed to actual Treasury figures? Wouldn’t they be a bit more reliable? ANDREW ROBB: The fact of matter is KPMG is the company that did the modelling for Treasury. This is the same modelling, right. So it just shows and demonstrates the sneaky nature of this Government. For reasons of a pure tax grab, not tax reform, they have sought to mislead people, grossly mislead people, and withhold information. Why won’t they put out their results, the assumptions that asked KMPG to use? In this instance it’s the same company, with the same models, making an assessment, and it shows quite clearly that the industry is paying substantially more, 33 per cent more, than every other company in Australia. And the Government is looking to take that to a totally unacceptable level of 95 per cent more. JOURNALIST: Shouldn’t the mining companies though pay more tax in comparing them to other companies who aren’t using resources that are in the ground in Australia? Shouldn’t there by some kind of premium for the fact that they’re getting access to that once only resource? ANDREW ROBB: There should be a premium. There should be a premium. And there is a premium. The thing is this KPMG work this morning, confirmed that there is a premium of about 33 per cent, over and above every other company in Australia. They’re paying around 40 per cent effective rate of tax on average, BHP is up at 43. And every other company pays 30, 29, 28. So that’s about a 33 per cent difference. It is a premium and it’s a fair share. What the Government wants to do is take that close to 60 per cent, which is 95 to 100 per cent more than every other company in Australia. Well, we just won’t get people investing. They won’t take the risk. Those minerals have no value, until someone puts serious amount of money and takes a lot of risk to extract them from the ground and export them. So you have to have sufficient incentive in there for companies to make that huge investment to take that risk. I do think that what we’re seeing is, those companies, that sector, with which we’ve got a comparative advantage, it’s a great strength of Australia, and what we’re seeing is the Government attacking the great strength of Australia. JOURNALIST: Those companies are making a lot more profit though as well, than standards companies, should they then be paying a greater share of tax? ANDREW ROBB: Well they are. They are. It’s a percentage, corporate tax is a percentage. They pay $2.6 billion of corporate tax ten years ago because the industry was in a slump. They weren’t making profits. Now they’re paying close to $20 billion in corporate tax. They are paying. And they should pay. They should pay. That’s what it’s designed for. But this piece of work this morning demonstrates that this is a tax grab, but also demonstrates the impact. Gold will be less competitive, in fact uncompetitive, the conclusion of this report is. Nickel will be uncompetitive. So not only will mines be under threat, but the prospect of new investment will be remote, and it means that literally tens of thousands of jobs in the development phase of all sorts of new projects, won’t happen over the next two, three, four years. And the revenue which would accrue there, which would amount to billions of dollars, will not hit the bottom line, and this budget that was brought down, is a house of cards. JOURNALIST: So you don’t think there’s any room for any negotiations, especially today, as the Minerals Council holds its Minerals Week Conference? ANDREW ROBB: I don’t think there’s any scope for the Government to maintain the fundamentals that they’ve got in place for the new tax. You can’t have a $9 billion tax on the industry that is our greatest strength, and expect the industry who are making the investments, taking the risk, to cop it. It won’t work. It won’t work for Australia. JOURNALIST: So do you think the room for negotiation simply hinges on that 40 per cent tax or the rate or when it kicks in? ANDREW ROBB: Well I don’t want to get into the negotiations. I think the best thing they can do is scrap it frankly. It is just a tax grab. It’s designed to do two things, one to fill a huge budget hole created by reckless spending which continues, and secondly, to pick a fight, to pick a fight with the miners, so the that Prime Minister, who has back-flipped on so many things and is seen as a real jelly back, that this Prime Minister can try and pretend that he’s got some toughness about him. I mean it’s just so cynical in the extreme. The cynicism is palpable. Mr Rudd stands condemned for what he’s doing to our country. He’s no longer fit to govern this country. Media Contact: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Thu, 03 Jun 2010 02:28:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1099 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1098/An-Address-to-The-Sydney-Institute-The-Coalition-Roadmap-to-Responsible-Economic-Management-and-Growth.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1098 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1098&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1098/An-Address-to-The-Sydney-Institute-The-Coalition-Roadmap-to-Responsible-Economic-Management-and-Growth.aspx LinkClick.aspx - The Sydney Institute Speech - June 2010.pdf On the eve of an election, after three years of governing, the extraordinary thing is that people still ask the question of Mr Rudd, “what do you really stand for, and what can you actually deliver?” In this speech tonight I would like to contrast the Rudd Government’s approach, and its consequences, as opposed to what the Coalition stands for, and the roadmap of real action that we will follow in regaining control of Australia’s finances, and protecting and growing our economy. There is no sense in the community that the Government is in control of things, no sense that Mr Rudd has a plan to protect and grow the economy. In fact, people feel the Government is simply responding to events as they occur, and with a political strategy not an economic strategy.  Australians actually need a government with the capability and conviction to deliver on the things they promise. To this end the Coalition is determined to offer a clear alternative choice of government to the Australian people. Australia’s Mood I sense the mood among Australians as one of uncertainty and caution about the future. As a consequence, Australians are looking for leadership, they are looking for calm and sure-footed judgement, and they are looking for a policy road map consistent with the uncertainties and opportunities we face. The recent wild swings in global equity, bond and currency markets compounds this mood. Australians understand that the major advanced economies of Europe, the US and Japan are deep in debt, without an obvious exit strategy. They know that the global financial woes that be-devilled the world twelve to eighteen months ago have not been put to bed.  In one sense they are worse.  Eighteen months ago the crisis was one of banks and financial institutions, but recently this has been compounded by the risk of default by western countries. Yet, the Rudd Government’s view of the future is confused. One minute Mr Rudd is warning that the debt crisis in Europe means Australia is ‘not out of the woods’.  The next minute he is saying that the next commodity price boom has arrived, and is here to stay. The fact is that the renewed volatility in global financial markets underscores the risk of massive levels of sovereign debt, and the fragility of much of the developed world. The response is to urgently re-build the economic resilience that the Rudd Government inherited if we are to build business and consumer confidence, and weather any new world-wide financial crisis. The response is to bring down the debt, embark on a bold productivity-based growth strategy, stop the reckless spending, lock in budget surpluses, rein in the make-work projects which add nothing to productivity growth and protect the ‘safe haven’ reputation for global investment that we have enjoyed for 30 years. We must not forget that events in Europe, in particular in Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy, are due in large part to reform fatigue.  As The Economist noted “they relaxed and gave up the tiresome business of pushing through reforms to enhance competition, hold down labour costs and boost productivity.” The Rudd Government Approach Mr Rudd came to office with enormous support for reform.  Expectations ran high.  There was trust. Yet, after three years of the Rudd government I despair at the lost opportunities, the cynicism, the incompetence and the extraordinary growth of government in our lives. I despair at the loss of international respect, the emergence of major sovereign risk for those who look to invest in Australia, the mounting cost pressures on families and the impact these pressures have on their enjoyment of life. Wealth is best created when people and organisations are empowered to maximise their potential, to go with their strengths, to take risks, to take responsibility for their own decisions and actions. Labor does not understand this dynamic. Rather, for them, government knows best, and if you see a problem, throw our money at it, even if it is borrowed. Labor believes that they know how to spend your money better than you do. And, for Rudd Labor, all reform revolves around spending money.  And if the country’s multi-billion dollars surplus and reserves run out, then spend borrowed money, and increase taxes. Mr Rudd has initiated no fundamental reform, much less any unpopular reform, even if it means revealing, for all to see, that he lacks the courage of his convictions.  His promises have proven worthless. The Rudd Government harks back to the worst of the Whitlam era, minus the conviction. It is a far cry from the Hawke era, with the likes of Peter Walsh, where the importance of markets and productivity was understood, as was the notion that you don’t solve all problems by throwing money at them.  Shame about the impulsiveness and pigheadedness of Paul Keating, which delivered “the recession we had to have”, with its 22 per cent interest rates and one million unemployed. The Coalition Alternative Roadmap The Coalition believes that the Australian community is best served by backing the particular talents, strengths and decisions of each individual Australian. With this in mind a Coalition government will shape a secure economic future for Australia around sustainable, strong growth and prudent financial management. High productivity, without debt and deficits, will provide the foundations of this secure economic future. To this end, the economic roadmap features: • Smaller government, with a greater reliance on the private sector and individual initiative, and a keen focus on improving the quality of government spending; • A flexible, fair and internationally competitive tax system for business and individuals, with flatter and lower levels of income taxation; • Fairer and more flexible workplaces, where real wage increases can be expected; • World class education, training and health services, where excellence and efficiency is rewarded, and greater local control is achieved; • A compassionate welfare system, where personal responsibility is encouraged and expected; • A sustainable population, involving a plan for immigration and growth which values and enhances individual quality of life; • Flexible energy, water, transport and telecommunication markets; • Improved efficiency of existing infrastructure including social infrastructure (aged care, hospitals etc), plus new infrastructure based on publicly available cost benefit analyses; • Sustainable water use; • A more competitive financial sector, with particular focus on small business; • Improved housing affordability, where land release is encouraged and other investments are made more attractive; • A major focus on indigenous education and work opportunities, without paternalism; • A sustainable and clean environment, where research and rehabilitation is prominent; • Less regulation, with a priority attack on excessive reporting requirements; • More effective Federal-State relations, with a return to the “Competition Policy” model applied to a range of policy objectives; and • Playing to our strengths, by further reinforcing areas of comparative advantage. Playing to our strengths means, among other things, not over taxing industries where we have comparative advantage compared with our overseas competitors. Australia spent decades over taxing industries such as mining, agriculture, and other successful export and import competing industries, through a wall of manufacturing tariffs which significantly increased the cost of so many inputs. The Rudd Government is now reverting back to this long discredited practice of over taxing a major area of comparative advantage, the mining sector.  It is a great folly to return to a policy approach which reduces competitiveness, kills investment and jobs, and undermines the great strengths with which Australia is blessed. The Rudd Government ‘Experiment’ Reviewing the three years of the Rudd Government ‘experiment’ tells us much about what we must do to turnaround the mess of debt and deficits. Before the global recession, monetary policy, in the form of interest rates was typically used to increase or discourage consumer and business spending, as required.  Government spending, or fiscal policy, was primarily focussed on incentives, savings and funding government services. Following the arrival of the financial crisis, lowering interest rates to stimulate spending was not an option for many OECD countries because their interest rates were nearly zero, and most households in those countries have fixed mortgage rates. For this reason the northern hemisphere governments were forced to massively increase public spending to soften the impact of the recession.  Rapid increases in public debt and deficits resulted.  The Rudd Government panicked, and over-reacted, by mimicking this high spending northern hemisphere solution.  Rubbing shoulders with the northern hemisphere ‘big boys’ clouded the judgement of Mr Rudd and Mr Swan; they were blinkered, and failed to see the alternative Australian solution. Unlike the northern hemisphere, Australia entered the global financial crisis with no public debt, a $20 billion surplus, $45 billion in the bank, a record low 4 per cent unemployment, a strong pipeline of projects and a properly regulated financial sector.  Alternative solutions were possible and far more appropriate in Australia. In Australia, the automatic economic stabilisers kicked in.  The exchange rate dropped from 90c to the US dollar to 60c to the US dollar.  This proved a massive aid to exports, prompting Australia’s largest ever trade surplus in the first quarter of 2009. Unlike the northern hemisphere, lower interest rates were able to work to significantly stimulate spending in Australia. The prevalence of variable mortgage rates in Australia, rather than the overseas fixed mortgage rates, meant that lower interest rates flowed straight through to people’s pockets.  The progressive reduction of interest rates by 4 ¼ per cent saw immediate and very significant injections of cash into millions of households.   Combined with long-standing, effective banking regulations and a very strong mining sector, both in the lead up to and during the down-turn, these measures, in combination with some of the first $10 billion fiscal stimulus, which was backed by the Coalition, ensured Australia had a soft landing. Yet, much of the second tranche of $42 billion of stimulus money in 2009 was an unnecessary over-reaction which saw debt and spending expand rapidly, making it very difficult to wind back deficits, and putting strong upward pressure on interest rates. This reckless spending continues, putting major pressure on interest rates, and leading to six interest rate rises in a row.  And we have the ludicrous situation where fiscal policy is at loggerheads with monetary policy – one stimulating the economy and crowding out private investment, while the other puts the brakes on. Australia is now paying the price through a $57 billion deficit, debt approaching $130 billion once the broadband billions are borrowed, Government borrowing of $700 million a week for the next two years, multi-billion dollar interest repayments for years to come, six interest rate increases in a row and much greater vulnerability for all of us if the world experiences a double dip recession. Households who took out a typical mortgage last year are now paying $4000 to $5000 per year more in loan repayments, resulting in enormous cost of living pressures. This reckless stimulus spending, a response to one-quarter of negative growth in the December quarter of 2008, is programmed to continue until 2012, four years after the global financial crisis.  It makes no sense. This spending has been accompanied by the greatest growth of government in our lives since the disastrous Whitlam era. Despite Kevin Rudd coming to power as a self-proclaimed ‘fiscal conservative’, championing risk, enterprise and lower taxes, the Rudd government used the world recession as a Trojan horse to push an old-style Labor, interventionist agenda: • to be the only country in the world to re-regulate its labour market during the financial crisis; • to be the only country I know that is re-nationalising its telecommunications sector, through the $43 billion broadband proposal; • to design an emissions trading scheme which maximised government revenue and maximised government involvement in investment decisions, rather than leaving company balance sheets strong enough to invest in low emissions technology; • to further undermine private health insurance; • to seek to dismantle employee share ownership; • to kill competition in the financial markets that had taken nearly 30 years to build; • to seek to establish a government bank – the Ruddbank; • to limit the choices of our children and grandchildren as they pay higher taxes for decades to repay the hundreds-of-billions-of-dollars of Commonwealth, and guaranteed Commonwealth State Government, debt; and, • to enter into a so-called ‘passive’ partnership in every mining project in the country trough the imposition of a great big new mining tax. Along the way, in seeking to introduce this agenda of taxing, spending, borrowing and government intervention, the Rudd Government has established a reputation as an incompetent administration after the monumental mismanagement of the $2.4 billion home insulation fiasco, the $6-$8 billions of dollars wasted in delivering the $16.2 billion school halls program, the $1.2 billion blow-out with the computer and schools program, the extra $1 billion price tag from the failure to control our borders and stop boats coming, the embarrassing indigenous housing program, the broken promises over the emissions trading scheme, private health insurance, childcare, GP super clinics, broadband, political advertising by the Government, tax hikes on employer superannuation, and a huge new tax which will make our resources sector the highest taxed resources sector in the world by a country mile.  So much for protecting our competitiveness. And the incompetence, spin, arrogance and electoral panic continues. The Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has just authorised the spending of a further $5.5 billion for the next phase of the Building the Education Revolution stimulus program, despite promising to wait and consider a $14 million investigation, she commissioned, into this chronically wasteful and discredited program. A Coalition government will tackle the debt and deficits head-on, and stop the reckless spending. Already we have announced $22 billion dollars of capital account savings which will come straight off the Rudd Government’s projected debt. In addition, we have announced detailed cuts to 39 Rudd Government spending programs, totalling $24.7 billion.  This is an unprecedented pre-election commitment. Significant additional cuts have been identified, and will be announced ahead of the election. In addition to better quality spending, the cuts will see a multi-billion dollar reduction to next year’s deficit, and hasten real, not imagined, progress in getting the books back in the black. China To this end, we must not squander the financial benefits that will flow from the demand from China in the immediate future.  We must not be lulled into adopting the naïve Rudd Government assumption, on which the Budget was based, that the commodities boom will continue indefinitely, predicting a ‘decades-long’ resources boom. A commodities boom will have a limited future if we face a world experiencing another major loss of financial confidence, and a flight from risk. Furthermore, eighteen years of professional involvement in agriculture exposed me to many commodity booms and busts.  Almost always the booms tapered off much sooner that expected. Invariably, forecasters and industry members badly underestimated the size and speed of the world-wide supply response to surging commodity prices. The same is happening now in the resources sector.  The world is awash with mineral resources, and thousands of projects are on the drawing boards in Eastern Europe, Asia, North America, South America and Africa. There is a four or five year window in which to capture many new resource projects that will benefit Australia for 30, 40 or 50 years.  If we don’t capture this opportunity we will have missed the boat, and future generations of Australians will be much the poorer for it. It is why the Rudd Government’s introduction of a deeply flawed and onerous 40 % resources rent tax in the middle of all this is so stupid. The proposal and the manner in which it has been announced puts this investment at risk.  It is why Australians no longer believe that the Rudd Government has the right answers, or the courage to see reform through. Banking Competition/Small Business The Rudd Government’s panicked response to the financial crisis had another long-term adverse consequence; the destruction of much of the competition in the banking sector built up over nearly 30 years. The small business sector has suffered most. The taxpayer funded bank guarantee, designed to secure credit supply and reduce the borrowing costs of the banks, was not passed on to customers despite having perhaps the lowest cost guarantee among OECD countries, at 70 basis points. Banking analysts estimate that of the four and a quarter per cent reduction in interest rates that occurred from 3 September, 2008, around 3.8 per cent was passed on to home loans, yet 2 per cent or less was passed on to small business and farmers. In the middle of a financial crisis we saw the four big banks not only secure much greater market share through mergers, acquisitions and the flight of deposits, but also make record profits. During this time the banks chased the home mortgage market, while neglecting lending to businesses.  In particular, the bar was raised for small business with a significant hike in risk premiums, and a marked reduction in credit availability and length of loans. Banks work for their shareholders.  So, given the opportunity, the banks used the Government guarantees to minimise risk, maximise market share and maximise profits. The failure was the Rudd Government’s.  The Government was intimidated by the big four banks. The taxpayer funded guarantees should have come with conditions attached to ensure that business, especially small business, shared properly in the benefits of the guarantees. Higher productivity is the foundation on which debt and deficits will be eliminated. Given that small business is the engine room of innovation in Australia, from a productivity and employment point of view particular attention should have been given to protecting these productive assets. The reverse happened. As well as cutting the size of Government to reduce the crowding out of small business seeking finance, the Coalition is exploring additional ways in which the continuing squeeze on credit can be addressed by the banks and others, as well as opportunities to restore more competition into what is now one of the most concentrated banking markets in the world. Resource Rent Tax The Government’s so-called super profits tax on the resources sector is a bugger’s muddle. Each day brings forward a new unintended consequence, confirming how little thought went into the consequences of the tax. It is a great big tax grab to pay for continued reckless spending, it is not tax reform. A decade ago, when the Howard Government introduced the GST, at the same time reducing income tax and abolishing a whole raft of inefficient taxes, the catchcry was “It’s not a new tax, it’s a new system.”  Well, this is not a new tax system, it’s just a great big new tax. The tax will increase the retail price of gas and electricity.  When you increase the cost of producing energy, someone will have to pay.  No doubt it is the end user. The superannuation savings of millions of Australians will be significantly affected, and all to pay for the Government’s reckless spending.  One thing I did observe working on farms in my teens, even before studying economics, was that when the profits from producing wheat or sheep or beef went down significantly, farmers produced less of that product, and moved to producing more of something else which gave greater returns.   In a similar vein, I would have thought that if the returns from producing minerals in Australia went down significantly because of a 40 per cent tax on profits, then companies would be inclined to set up new mines in other countries where returns for the same generic commodity were much higher, and where the rules didn’t change mid-stream, without consultation, at the whim of an ignorant government. No matter what the theoretical models say, with their assumptions of perfect capital markets and guaranteed growth, the real world doesn’t work this way. The tax will see dozens of future new mining projects shelved.  Billions of dollars of investment, and tens of thousands of jobs will go elsewhere in the world. Before standing for Parliament in 2004, one commercial project I was involved with was two years as a member of one of Chevron’s investment teams assessing the massive Gorgon gas field off the North-West shelf.  One of the many things I learnt was the existence of many such Chevron investment teams running a similar ruler over similar projects in the four corners of the globe.  There was intense competition between these projects.  A 15 per cent return of investment was merely the starting gate of getting your project ahead of any others.  My abiding conclusion was that these big resource companies have options, and many of them.  As well, the competitive position of each project was extremely sensitive to relative taxation positions between countries.  It wasn’t a rash claim when Rio Tinto chief Tom Albanese said recently “from my own perspective, this is my number one sovereign risk issue on a global basis”.  Xstrata chief executive Mick Davis has backed these comments. The Rudd Government is playing with fire. Bank finance will be further discouraged because banks value the loss reimbursement component of the tax at zero.  As well, banks don’t like interest and other tax not being deductible in determining the profit figure which will be taxed. The 40 per cent funding of the losses of firms that go bust is part nationalisation of the mining sector.  To suggest it is a ‘passive’ involvement by government is spin of the highest order. If I was the Finance Minister, and taxpayers faced the prospect of rewarding failed mines to the tune of tens-of-billions-of-dollars, I would have a responsibility not to remain ‘passive’. Our country is not some African dictatorship.  This level of involvement of government in industry has no place in 21st century Australia. As well, I can see thousands of pages of reporting requirements emerging from bureaucrats looking to cover many a backside. Yet, the current Finance Minister, Mr Tanner, said last Sunday “these are overwhelmingly very, very large companies with very sophisticated accounting and computer systems where questions of this kind are always going to be able to be dealt with, so I do not believe this is a substantial issue in the debate”. Mr Tanner has to get out more. If he did he might discover that there are 4200 mines around Australia, including hundreds of family owned sand and gravel quarries, limestone mines, small opal operations, and thousands of other mid-size mineral and precious metal businesses that pour millions of dollars into their local communities.  For these more bureaucracy, red tape and the absence of finance is not a trivial issue.  It is the difference between surviving or not. The government has cleverly and deceitfully implied that the mining sector currently pays nothing extra for the privilege of mining a resource that is finite and belongs to all Australians; implying that only by paying more tax will it pay its ‘fair share’. What is never made clear is that the mining sector does pay around 33 per cent more tax than every other sector of the economy, namely around 40 per cent average effective rate of tax versus 28, 29 or 30 per cent paid by every other sector.  And the mining sector should pay this extra 33 per cent tax as its ‘fair share’. However, what the Government never makes clear is that it wants to increase the extra tax paid by the mining sector from 33 per cent to around 85 per cent more tax than every other business in Australia, namely an increase from 40 per cent to 55 per cent effective rate of tax versus 28, 29 or 30 per cent paid by other business sectors. Contrary to the nonsense the Government has been asserting, these numbers were confirmed overnight with the release of KPMG work, modelled over the life of the projects across key minerals. This study, by the same company that did the Government’s analysis, confirmed dramatic reductions in the net present value of up to 57 per cent, making nickel, copper and goldmines economically unviable. The problem is that Australia’s mining competition in other countries pay much less than the proposed 58 per cent in Australia, with the US at 40 per cent, Brazil at 38 per cent, Canada at 32 per cent and down from there. Now Australia looks a lot riskier and far less profitable. The brutal and personal political attacks by the Government on this important export industry and its leaders, combined with the naïve and dangerous design of the tax and the deliberate failure to consult, has left Australian business and overseas investors bewildered. There is a growing sense that the Government and their advisors don’t understand the nature of investment in a globalised world, nor how key markets work, that they are dangerously out of their depth.  Business confidence in the Government has been shattered. In particular, optimism that once surrounded the Prime Minister is rapidly fading. Trust has ebbed away. Attracting international investors will be much harder going, and not just for mining, now that Australia has gained a reputation for reckless decision making and retrospective taxation.  We now have a sovereign risk problem. The widespread community uncertainty that prevails in Australia has been compounded by this very damaging tax, and the events that have surrounded its proposed introduction. A Coalition government will cut through this uncertainty, and the great threat to the current engine of economic growth in Australia, by scrapping this job destroying resources tax. Conclusion Ronald Reagan said Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases:  ‘if it moves, tax it.  If it keeps moving, regulate it.  And if it stops moving, subsidise it’. I suggest Kevin Rudd’s approach could be summed up even more simply: If money has been saved, spend it; if an industry is profitable and successful, tax it; if it questions or opposes you, vilify it. This is not reform.  It is governing by the news cycle. We need a government that makes decisions.  Mr Rudd has yet to make a hard decision; he can’t see over his groaning to-do list.  He’s all talk and no action. The next twelve months are critical; the next three years are absolutely critical.  What if Australia has another three years like the last?  Australia needs clear policies, but also the resolve to see it through.  And the strength to say no - a word foreign to Messrs Rudd, Swan and Tanner. The Coalition has a plan, a roadmap, and the strength to do the job. If Australia supports that plan, we will see any future challenges through, and make the most of the wonderful opportunities Australia presents.  You make your own luck. Andrew Robb Wed, 02 Jun 2010 07:26:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1098 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1097/Transcript-of-the-Hon-Andrew-Robb-AO-MP-Interview-with-Sky-Midday-Agenda.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1097 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1097&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1097/Transcript-of-the-Hon-Andrew-Robb-AO-MP-Interview-with-Sky-Midday-Agenda.aspx Topics:  Labor’s Government advertising hypocrisy, Labor’s mining tax grab, Kevin Rudd misleading Parliament. E&OE Ashleigh Gillon: Andrew Robb thank you for your time. Is the Coalition considering backing the Greens Private members Bill which would see a real crackdown on Government advertising through legislation? Andrew Robb: Well, we’ll have a look at it, but I think our priority is to insist that the Prime Minister do what he promised to do, in fact he guaranteed to do it. He was yelling from the roof tops before the last campaign that under no circumstances would he engage in political advertising with taxpayers’ money. So none of this would be a problem, there would be no suggestion of more regulation and all the rest if he had just abided by the absolute, cast iron promise that he made before the last election. Ashleigh Gillon: Well this is still a problem though, even if you take this case out, the Howard Government was under a lot of pressure over this very issue.  Don’t you think more broadly this is something that does need legislation? Andrew Robb Well again, let’s not get away from the real issue, he had his own guidelines, he did put in place a whole lot of strictures and independent assessment of advertising and then removed that a few months ago. I mean the cynicism in this is palpable. Ashleigh Gillon: So doesn’t that point out the need for legislation so that people can’t just … Andrew Robb: What it points out is the Government of the day can override, if there’s enough cynicism, even legislation; I think the real thing is there needs to be a commitment that taxpayers’ money is not used for political advertising and that the population will hold them to account. I think on this occasion, with all the feedback I get back on the health advertising, which is just grossly political advertising, I suspect the mining advertising will be the same. This will blow-up in their face. Ashleigh Gillon: But I am curious, I know I keep coming back to the legislation, but I am curious as to whether the Coalition believes that legislation is necessary to make this a real crack down and one people can’t get around, because the Greens’ bill they are putting up would mean the Auditor General has to approve any spending that is over $250,000. Isn’t that something that would be good for both sides of politics to have to adhere to? Andrew Robb: Well, I mean we’ll look at it, we’ll have to make sure that whatever is there does address … Ashleigh Gillon: So you broadly agree that legislation is necessary? Andrew Robb: Well if legislation is possible that can be effective, but I suppose my point is, let’s not turn this issue; the Prime Minister and the Labor Party are junking the economy, that’s what is going on at the present time. Now, to aid and abet that they are going to spend $38 million of taxpayers’ money for advertising. But the real issue is that this great big new tax, which is starting to impact greatly on share markets and exchange rates and all the rest of it. Let’s not divert all that with three weeks’ of debate on a piece of legislation that may, or may not be effective sometime in the future. There should be a commitment by all the parties, a strong commitment to not spend taxpayers’ money on political advertising. And Kevin Rudd himself should abide by the cast iron commitment he gave three years ago. You know he was almost hysterical about his opposition with this. Ashleigh Gillon: Is it a bit hypocritical of the Coalition though to go so hard on the Government over this political advertising, when John Howard spend $250 million on Government ads in his final year alone, he spent $120 million on the GST campaign, which was also before the GST legislation had passed through the Parliament, aren’t you both as bad as each other? Andrew Robb: We never stood up and promised hand on heart that we wouldn’t do any advertising, a lot of that advertising, the GST advertising, a lot of strong communication material in that. I don’t think people at the time were criticising that as political advertising, but the point is, the real issue in all of this, the point that we are seeking to make, is the gross hypocrisy of the Prime Minister. Sure, deal with advertising, but it’s the hypocrisy that is the centre of this issue and it goes to people’s trust of the Prime Minister, not just on this issue but a host of issues. He is really just showing that he is not fit to govern because on almost every important issue he is breaking people’s trust, he is going against promises and he is showing himself totally inconsistent. Ashleigh Gillon: The Coalition does want a Senate inquiry into the advertising issue, is that something you would be willing to have look at, the former government’s spending as well? Andrew Robb: We are trying to get to the bottom of why a Government Minister last week would hide all this from Senate Estimates, as I understand, the Treasury had commissioned $350,000 worth of market research before the Budget which extends through until yesterday.  They won’t say what it’s for.  We now know that Mr Swan was talking about advertising right back at the time of the Budget, this has all the hallmarks of a conspiracy to grossly mislead the Australian people.  We are seeing a Prime Minister who last Thursday stood in the House and misled the Parliament, said in no way was this great big new tax affecting exchange rates or the market, yet at that very same time a letter on Monday, had gone from Mr Swan which said we need this advertising money because the market is being affected.  Now you can’t tell me that the Prime Minister, in fact he had a copy of that letter from the Monday, so they have been planning this I think for weeks, long before the miners arked up about the massive impact and I think we are seeing the cynicism again, they could well have been planning this before they even brought down the tax in my view. Ashleigh Gillon: So on political advertising then, doesn’t that bring us back to the main point and all those reasons that you just outlined, show why there is a need for actual legislation to go through this Parliament so that when you are in Opposition or in Government you have the same opinions so that when you are back in Government one day then you won’t be able to do exactly what Kevin Rudd has been doing with political advertising. Andrew Robb: Well again, sure, look at the advertising but that fact of advertising itself, which I think will be counter productive anyway, is not the critical point it’s another example of the hypocrisy and the cynicism and in a way, the sneakiness of this Government, which I think for crass political purposes, it is risking our reputation as a safe haven for investment around the world for their own political skin, to save their own political skin.  This is all about orchestrating a fight with they say the big end of town, ignoring thousands of quarries and small mines and all the rest, it’s not just for the big end of town, but they’re orchestrating a fight for political purposes.  They want to go to an election where they are seen to be embarking on the class warfare, now this is politics at its grubbiest level. Ashleigh Gillon: On the substance of the mining tax, Treasury modelling shows that the Coalition’s levy on business to fund your Paid Parental Leave scheme would have an adverse effect on the economy whereas the Government’s mining tax would help grow the economy, is that Treasury modelling wrong? Andrew Robb: Well who would know, we never see the modelling? Ashleigh Gillon: I’ve got it right here. Andrew Robb: Have you seen the assumptions?  I mean we see the outcomes.  They’ll have pages of assumption in a model.  I did years of this stuff and I know how you could alter two or three assumptions and you get an outcome you want, I understand the Econtech modelling for the great big new tax. One of the assumptions was that it had to show the economy growing, well ipso facto you get an outcome you want, it’s like Yes Minister this.  I mean the episode last week, you’ve got a Government Minister straight out of Yes Minister, you’ve got a Government Minister writing to another Government Minister requesting permission to overrule their own rules and shock horror they agreed. Ashleigh Gillon: Of course the RSPT is being used to help pay for the drop in company tax so that is presumably a measure that would help grow the economy. Andrew Robb: Well again, what it didn’t assess was the impact on growth. In my view if we stop 150, 200 new mining projects over the next three years, and they are stopping already, there are people already losing jobs, contractors, geologists, small business; people all those who service the mining sector already losing jobs because of the threat of this new tax.  Lose 150 projects, growth will be stunted, we will not get the growth they talk about in three years time. Ashleigh Gillon: Do you have any examples of the jobs that have gone already? Andrew Robb: Yes there are people, I can’t cite them here but they have been told to me and colleagues this morning in a meeting, out of Cairns, out of Townsville, out of Brisbane, out of Melbourne, there are so many, hundreds of thousands of people who service the mining industry and those cutbacks are occurring around the country as we speak. Ashleigh Gillon: Just to clarify, there has been some confusion about what the position is in the Coalition as to whether or not the mining industry is paying enough tax.  Is the industry as a whole paying enough tax right now? Andrew Robb: Well, what the Government has never really explained is that the mining industry currently pays 33 per cent more tax than every other industry. The rest of industry pays 30 cents or less in the dollar, the mining industry pays 41cents in the dollar, 33 percent more.  What the Government wants to do, I think that’s a fair share, they want to take it to 100 percent more than all.  They want to take it to 60. Ashleigh Gillon: So when Barnaby Joyce says there is room for movement at a federal level on mining taxes, he was wrong? Andrew Robb: We think what they are currently paying is a fair share, you want to talk about fair share, and they’ve got a fair share.  The point is the Government is trying to totally profiteer, this is a tax grab, if they are talking another 2 or 3 per cent there probably wouldn’t be a debate.  What they are talking about is taking it from 41 cents to nearly 60 cents in the dollar.  It’s a mile ahead of any other of our competitors, so we will lose investment in spadefuls… Ashleigh Gillon: Do you have your own modelling backing up those claims that it would be 60 cents in the dollar? Andrew Robb: Well treasury have actually confirmed it if you look at the paper by Ken Henry his tax would’ve been 58 cents in the dollar. Ashleigh Gillon: But he did say he wouldn’t expect most mining companies to pay anywhere near that. Andrew Robb: Well, again his model was fundamentally different to the one the Government has put up. You can’t assume that big licks of money, but the point is the fact that a Government is prepared, mid project, for lots of these projects, to change the rules – retrospective taxation I mean it would send shock waves, it is sending shockwaves through the investment markets overseas and it won’t just affect our mining sector. They will be reluctant when mining companies are short to put serious money into banking or any other sector in Australia from overseas and we are dependent so much on overseas capital.  It’s just lunacy.  They are trashing this economy and you know he is not fit to govern the way he is carrying on. Ashleigh Gillon: I am sure we’ll hear more about that in question time this afternoon, just finally before you go, young LNP members are planning to celebrate Gough Whitlam’s birthday this year ‘because he is old and nearly dead’.  Is that the way you expect young members of your party to behave, do you think they should have their membership withdrawn? Andrew Robb: No, they shouldn’t behave like that. I don’t know this young fellow that put this up, it was totally out of whack, out of court.  They should not conduct themselves in this way and identify themselves with the party and they should be censured. Ashleigh Gillon: OK Andrew Robb, thanks for you time. Andrew Robb: My pleasure.  Thanks Ashleigh. Andrew Robb Tue, 01 Jun 2010 00:37:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1097 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1096/Transcript-of-the-Hon-Andrew-Robb-AO-MP-Doorstop-Interview-Parliament-House-Canberra.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1096 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1096&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1096/Transcript-of-the-Hon-Andrew-Robb-AO-MP-Doorstop-Interview-Parliament-House-Canberra.aspx Topics:  Kevin Rudd misleading the Parliament; Government advertising campaign, Labor’s great big new tax on mining E&OE ANDREW ROBB: I would like to make some comments if I could about this advertising campaign, that’s been quite improperly planned. In my view, what we are seeing has all the hallmarks of a conspiracy to grossly mislead the Australian people. It would appear that over several weeks the Government has sought to orchestrate a campaign whereby they could conclude with a massive advertising campaign. The Prime Minister without doubt has understood this and agreed with it all along. It could well have been planned even before they announced the tax. It was certainly planned before the Budget, long before the mining industry started to make major protests about the tax. It is a situation where the Prime Minister, in my view, has clearly misled the Parliament. He stood up last week and swore black and blue that this tax had had no impact on the market, had no impact on exchange rates, had no impact on share prices, and said to Tony Abbott “wrong, wrong, wrong”. He said that on two occasions last week, at the same time his Minister Ludwig was making a decision to agree to Treasurer Swan’s request for an advertising campaign, the $38 million advertising campaign, which was based solely, solely on the pretext that the tax was starting to affect the market. So clearly he has misled the Parliament; he needs to come out today at the earliest opportunity and give a full and frank explanation as to why he has misled the Parliament. QUESTION: Andrew is it appropriate for young LNP members up in Queensland to be denigrating Gough Whitlam by holding a ‘let’s celebrate the near death of Gough Whitlam party’.? ANDREW ROBB: It’s the first I’ve heard of it to be honest. I can’t comment on something I haven’t had any knowledge of. QUESTION: You say that Kevin Rudd potentially misled the Parliament last week over the value of share markets going down as a result of the resources tax, but how about external factors, such as the problems in Greece and the Dow Jones, also having a bit of a bad run last week? ANDREW ROBB: Well clearly, if he’d taken the opportunity, as no doubt he did, I can’t believe that he didn’t, look at all the graphs of the Australian dollar against other exchange rates.   Greece is the problem, Europe’s the problem, money was fleeing out of Europe and yet our exchange rate went down further than European currencies; went down further than the Brazilian currency, went down further than the Canadian currency, we are usually in lock-step with the Canadian currency. Clearly the Government knew all along that this mining tax was having an impact on the market, was affecting superannuation funds and the superannuation returns of Australians. I think it is appalling that this Government has in a sense orchestrated this fight with the miners, because that’s what it smells like, it looks like Mr Rudd was keen to have a fight with the miners. They have planned an advertising campaign for several weeks now, long before this thing became centre stage. They, I think for crass political purposes have been prepared to sacrifice the reputation of Australia as a safe investment haven around the world. They are putting anything at risk in the interests of their political skins. And it is appalling I think that the Government would do what they’ve done and the Prime Minister has been so complicit in this that he’s been prepared to stand up in the Parliament and say black is white. To say that the tax is in no way affecting the market, when his own ministers, at the same time his Treasurer and his Minister of State are making a decision, because of the effect on the market to orchestrate and to introduce a $38 million advertising campaign. I just say to you, if it’s such a crisis that we need a $38 million advertising campaign, why did they not advertise when we had the insulation scandal. People were dying, houses were burning and there was mass confusion and uncertainty and fear across the population why didn’t they have [inaudbible] … they are looking for a fight, they want to go to an election with class warfare. And they want to try and divide the nation over this issue for crass political purposes. QUESTION: [Inaudible] ANDREW ROBB: I do think and I have felt for some time, that one, invariably a lot of this political advertising, under the auspice of being Government information campaigns, invariably is ineffective, I think people see through it, I think it is a waste of money. And I certainly would not be supporting political advertising under the guise of information campaigns. QUESTION: So you think that the political advertising that the Liberal Party did for WorkChoices was a waste of money? ANDREW ROBB: I think it was less effective than people hoped it would be. And I think this campaign of the Government’s, I think will fly back in their face and that’s an issue that I think all Governments will need to address, state and federal. We are seeing in Victoria the State Government there spending millions-and-millions-of-dollars on blatantly political advertising and I don’t think it’s doing them any good either. QUESTION: So do you think the Opposition will support the Greens motion to legislate an independent review for advertising? ANDREW ROBB: I’m not sure of the process, but I do think it does need to have some oversight and we will look at their proposal. Media Contact: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Mon, 31 May 2010 04:07:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1096 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1095/Interview-with-Alexandra-Kirk-ABC-AM.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1095 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1095&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1095/Interview-with-Alexandra-Kirk-ABC-AM.aspx Topics: Government uses graduate’s working paper to falsely claim Australian mining companies by between 13 and 17 per cent tax   E&OE   SHANE MCLEOD: The Opposition says the Treasurer has based his claim that mining companies pay between 13 and 17 per cent tax on a working paper by a North Carolina University graduate student. The shadow finance minister, Andrew Robb, has accused the Government of using "the politics of desperation" to mount its attack on the mining industry. Mr Robb spoke to Alexandra Kirk a short time ago. ANDREW ROBB: Well, I've seen the paper it's a working paper by a graduate student at North Carolina University. It's used, you know, data from all over the world. They've spent five pages of assumptions how they sought to correct that data. This is the shonkiest piece of work you've ever seen. The academics couldn't work out where to put New Zealand so they put their data in with our data. What we're seeing is the Deputy Prime Minister of this country and the Treasurer of this country mounting a major, scurrilous attack on icons of Australian industry solely on the basis of the work of a young, North Carolina graduate student. It's… ALEXANDRA KIRK: You can provide the evidence for that? ANDREW ROBB: This is amateur hour. I can absolutely provide it and instead of picking up the phone any time of the day or night and asking the tax office to confirm what is the effective tax, I'm sure Treasury's done that, I bet Treasury is grossly embarrassed by this. This is an act of desperation by this Government, it's hugely irresponsible, their credibility is been blowing out of the water. Wayne Swan is out there demanding that the unions stop running a scare campaign and he's the Treasurer of a country trashing, you know, decades of reputation by this country with a scurrilous denigration campaign. ALEXANDRA KIRK: The Treasurer's office says that the figures come from the Henry review on taxation which recommended the super profits tax and that the Henry review sources it's information and cites the reference as 'The National Bureau of Economic Research in the United States'. ANDREW ROBB: Again, it's a classic piece of spin. There's thousands of contributions that the Henry tax review, it was not commissioned in any sense by the review, it was just another contribution of hundreds of others at least ALEXANDRA KIRK: No, but it cites that the National Bureau of Economic Research in the US is the source of the information. ANDREW ROBB: The working paper was, as I understand, presented at the National Bureau of Research in the US, so it's on their website as a piece of work. It's, it's just amateur hour what's going on. This, this Government's unravelling before our eyes, the desperation of this move, to go out there and get a kid's piece of work from the United States, a North Carolina University, a piece of work done last year, as the… ALEXANDRA KIRK: But isn't it…. ANDREW ROBB: ...evidence for trashing our reputation. There's no respect for this industry, no respect for the 500,000 people who work in this industry, no respect for our investment reputation around the world, we are now a laughing stock around the world, and to base a major attack by two of the three most senior people in this Government on our industry, they don't realise what they're doing. They're running out of control. ALEXANDRA KIRK: This piece of research, as you call it, it's not a piece of valid research? ANDREW ROBB: It's, it's a shonky. ALEXANDRA KIRK: With a name, with an academic background to it. ANDREW ROBB: Look, the bottom line is the Treasurer of the country, the tax office reports to him, the Deputy Prime Minister is more senior, either of them could pick up the phone any time of the day or night and demand to see what is the effective rate of tax. This piece of work doesn't include royalties, doesn't include pay roll tax, doesn't include all sorts of other tax. It's based on income data from 192 countries, the sample is inadequate, to say the least, they've combined New Zealand and Australian data because they didn't really know the difference, they didn't know what to do with New Zealand. This is, this is bizarre in the extreme that people of this level in our Government are so desperate to support and cover up the great big tax grab that's now, you know, blown up in their face, they need to be censured in the most strongest fashion for this irresponsible activity. SHANE MCLEOD: The shadow finance minister, Andrew Robb, speaking to Alexandra Kirk in Canberra.     Andrew Robb Mon, 24 May 2010 10:15:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1095 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1093/Tanners-Numbers-in-Tatters.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1093 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1093&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1093/Tanners-Numbers-in-Tatters.aspx Yesterday the Coalition announced an unprecedented $46.7 billion in recurrent and capital savings to rein in Labor’s reckless spending, ease cost of living pressures and pay down their massive debt.  Today the Coalition is releasing its expenditure measures announced to date, totalling nearly $4.8 billion.  “These costings leave in tatters the desperate claims of the Finance Minister, Mr Tanner, that Coalition promises add up to $15.7 billion,” said Andrew Robb, Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction.   Given the commitment to release the costings of already announced policies following is a table of costings relating to our $4.8 billion spending commitments including, our Direct Action Plan to combat climate change, the Green Army, Paid Parental Leave, Toowoomba bypass and our commitment to private health insurance to keep pressure off the public health system.   Expenditure Commitments   2010-11 $M 2011-12 $M 2012-13 $M 2013-14 $M TOTAL $M Direct Action Plan on Climate Change 0 -462 -667 -922 -2051 Green Army 0 -50 -100 -250 -400 PHI Rebate Protection - 142 -758 -703 -732 -2051 Toowoomba Bypass        0 -50 -80 -150 -280 Paid Parental Leave (self-funding) 0 0 0 0 0 Total 142 -1320 -1550 -2054 -4782   Of course if we get more information from the budget senate estimates process we will factor that into these estimates.   All capital account savings are to be used solely to reduce the debt, and not for recurrent expenditure, contrary to the false claims of Mr Tanner.  Of course, any debt repaid generates savings in gross interest payments which is a current account saving.   The Green Army program will be phased over time to avoid the problems seen in government programs such as the school halls and pink batts fiascos.   “In view of the massive $57 billion deficit, the $100 million that this government is borrowing every day and the net debt reaching up to $120 to $130 billion (including NBN borrowings), any other past commitments have been discontinued,” said Mr Robb.   Those worthy initiatives which are no longer Coalition policy in light of Labor’s reckless and debt driven spending include:   ·         The small business carry back for losses which was proposed in the context of the Global Financial Crisis; and ·         The reinstatement of 2008 concessional caps on superannuation.   Mr Tanner, in his press release of 13 May 2010, also claimed that the Coalition was to spend $2.38 billion on reversing reforms to reinstate payments to people earning in excess of $150,000 per annum.  This is simply not true.  It is another dishonest misrepresentation from a Finance Minister who doesn’t dot his i’s or cross his t’s.   In addition to these announced spending initiatives, around $3 billion in offsets, involving more effective policy responses in the areas of education, training and broadband, will be funded against the $24.7 billion of savings.    In 2007, as part of $15 billion of new expenditure, the Labor Party announced $10 billion of savings, of which half were offsets.  This meant Labor announced $5 billion of unfunded expenditure.    Further significant savings will be announced by the Coalition in due course.   Correcting government spin   Number 1- NBN   In relation to Labor’s high-risk NBN Mr Tanner can try and spin it however he likes, but the reality is he plans to borrow at least $26 billion in the name of taxpayers to fund it. This includes $18 billion in borrowings over the next four years, which will incur billions of dollars in interest payments.    The Coalition will reduce Federal government debt by this $18 billion over the next four years, as well as a further $4 billion from the sale of Medibank Private.   Number 2 - Savings   To suggest that a range of programs, costing an amount similar to the forecast revenue from the mining tax, are not real savings because of Coalition opposition to the tax, is a totally false claim.   Is the government suggesting that if forecast revenue of $12 billion from the tax is half that amount because of an event such as a significant fall in commodity prices, that the government will only fund half of these measures?  Of course not.   Further, the government response is totally confused.  The government can’t have it both ways.  They can’t say the savings aren’t real while Minister after Minister have been issuing media statements identifying the things people will miss out on if the Coalition is elected.   Number 3 Labor’s “House of cards” Budget   The flakiness of Labor’s Budget forecasts has been further highlighted by the recent drop in Australia’s exchange rate as a result of the proposed mining tax.   Australia is no longer seen as “a safe haven” for nervous mobile capital.  The budget was predicated on an exchange rate of 90 Australian cents to the $US.  The vulnerability of the forecasts have been clearly exposed less than two weeks after the budget was delivered.   Andrew Robb Thu, 20 May 2010 06:49:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1093 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1092/Coalitions-Plan-to-Rein-in-Rudds-Reckless-Spending.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1092 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1092&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1092/Coalitions-Plan-to-Rein-in-Rudds-Reckless-Spending.aspx The Coalition today announced an unprecedented $46.7 billion plan as a serious first step to rein in Labor’s reckless spending, and take pressure off both increasing interest rates and costs of living, and pay down Labor’s massive debt. “The Coalition rejects Labor’s tax and spend approach for managing our economy. “The massive savings plan is just the beginning.  Further savings will be announced ahead of the election to demonstrate how Australia’s financial accounts can return to the black, without resorting to major new taxes which strangle growth,” said Andrew Robb, Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction. The savings are made up of $24.7 billion off recurrent spending, to fund an attack on the deficit and some offsetting spending initiatives, and $22 billion of one off capital savings which will draw down the Rudd Government’s massive debt. Calls by the Rudd Government to release an alternative Budget were dismissed as breathtaking hypocrisy. “In Opposition, the current government announced a paltry $3 billion dollars worth of savings ahead of the election.  The detailed costings of a further $7 billion of savings, and offsets, were revealed just 12 hours before the election. “Buried deep in Labor’s 6 page costings and savings document, was the fact that a massive $5 billion of spending commitments were unfunded. “The dye was cast then on Labor’s reckless spending and debt approach to economic management,” Mr Robb said. LinkClick.aspx - 070302_3Billion_Savings TANNER.pdf LinkClick.aspx - Coalition savings 1 2.pdf LinkClick.aspx - Independent Costing Review Panel Report on Labor Spending 23.11.2007.pdf LinkClick.aspx - independent_costers_letter_to_tim_gartrell 23.11.2007.pdf LinkClick.aspx - TANNER Third Savings 22.11.2007.pdf Andrew Robb Thu, 20 May 2010 06:30:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1092 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1090/Interview-with-Steve-Price-and-Andrew-Bolt-MTR.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1090 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1090&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1090/Interview-with-Steve-Price-and-Andrew-Bolt-MTR.aspx Topics: Coalition’s Budget savings plan, Labor’s reckless spending and borrowing E&OE STEVE PRICE: The Shadow Finance Minister is Andrew Robb, he’s on the line. Thanks for your time. ANDREW ROBB: My pleasure Steve. STEVE PRICE: Bit of a PR disaster wasn’t it? ANDREW ROBB: Well, some of the journalists got a bit agitated that Joe spent his speech primarily trying to map out a framework that we would take through government to approaching a lot of these financial and economic issues. He did release the number and release the detail immediately after the speech and I gave a 45 minute press conference to take people through it. STEVE PRICE: We know your love of AFL, but that was a lovely hand pass from him. ANDREW ROBB: Well, as I say, I was quite comfortable, we are a team. I mean Tony Abbott last week announced several cuts. STEVE PRICE: You’re on the end of a chain of hand passes there. ANDREW ROBB: I was there to put it through the goals you see. ANDREW BOLT: Andrew honestly, I can’t believe the fuss made by precious journalists, about the fact that you’ve announced all these spending details, but you announced it not at exactly the hour of their choosing. ANDREW ROBB: That’s right. ANDREW BOLT: I mean talk about precious that this becomes the story. Get back to the point. Now here’s the criticism… STEVE PRICE: Well we’ve fallen in. ANDREW BOLT: Now here’s the real criticism of poor old Andrew Robb here. Did you read Andrew, that poor old Tony Wright at the Age is now criticising you for explaining all these cuts to them, boring everyone near to death. ANDREW ROBB: That’s right. ANDREW BOLT: Can you amp it up a bit please! ANDREW ROBB: Well I didn’t have a song and dance act I’m afraid. There were 45 minutes of questions which I sought to answer, and I don’t think anyone contradicted what I said. STEVE PRICE: Well, let’s get to sort of specifics, you have included the $12 billion that would be roped in by the resources tax. You’ve opposed that tax and it’s not going to be introduced for two years anyway. How can you put that in, when it doesn’t exist? ANDREW ROBB: This amazes me, some of them raised this issue yesterday, and Lindsay Tanner has sought to sort of pursue it. The fact of the matter is they are a series of programs, some of them quite attractive we just haven’t got the money to go ahead with that. The country hasn’t got the money. STEVE PRICE: But how can you call that a saving, Andrew? ANDREW ROBB: They are in the spending column, you know if you do any sort of spreadsheet on spending and expenditure for a company, or a country, you have a spending column. STEVE PRICE: But didn’t you claim that that column and those figures were based on a false assumption when you responded to the Budget in the Parliament? ANDREW ROBB: No, no, the bottom line is Steve, that all of those programs, the Government will go ahead with. If they get to year three and four and the resource rent tax, its commodity prices has come off, or the tax is modified to the point they get half the money, they won’t cut the programs in half, those programs are a fixture in their four year budget. Those programs have been announced and those programs will go ahead. So whatever we do with the tax, those programs are still there in the Government’s spending column, and there’s an expectation in the community that they will deliver them. STEVE PRICE: So you’re saying we should be putting more money into super but we can’t afford to. ANDREW ROBB: That’s right. ANDREW BOLT: This whole thing’s amazing mate, for the last two elections, you will know, the Liberals were attacked by the media for reckless spending at a time when we actually had a lot of money. Now that we’ve got a $40 billion deficit coming up next financial year courtesy of this Government, you’re being attacked by the same media, for announcing cuts. How does that compute? ANDREW ROBB: Well this is bizarre. The Labor Party at the last election made out that they had identified major cuts, huge cuts. They actually identified $10 billion worth of which $5 billion were offsets, in other words, they had alternate programs, and they went into the election with $5 billion unfunded. We announced yesterday, in terms of capital and recurrent savings, nearly $50 billion. Now it beggars belief people can now start to criticise the fact we’ve got huge deficits, $57 billion this year, $40 billion next year, the Government’s borrowing $100 million a day and will do so for the next two years, then you’ve got fantasy assumptions being made about the year three and four. We are in a position where if there is anoth