Patrick Gorman MP on Sky News' Afternoon Agenda

TOM CONNELL, HOST: We are going to squeeze a bit more juice out of the lemon from Jason Falinski and Patrick Gorman, our volunteers here at Sky News. Patrick, of course, the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Jason, former Liberal MP. Let me start on the defence announcement today. Patrick, so we're getting told it's not cuts. It's not saving. It's nothing at all. Just about efficiency. Are there going to be more efficiencies, though, to fund AUKUS effectively?

PATRICK GORMAN, ASSISTANT MINISTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER: This is about making sure that we can deliver on what we need for the defence of our nation. We have had some additional $70 billion of defence spending committed by this Government. I want to make sure that we can deliver that. That is what this new agency is all about doing. I think about the big projects we have got on my side of the country, such as the expansion of the Henderson shipbuilding precinct - we have got to make sure that we deliver that on time and make sure that we can do it in a way that gets the absolute best value for money for Australian taxpayers. That is what this is about. It is a sensible move, and I hope we get broader support.

CONNELL: On time and on budget, don't think that exists for a defence project. Jason, where do you sit on this? Is it a reality that no matter which side would be in you'd have to find some cuts, whatever it might be, within defence, or does the budget need to get a lot bigger to accommodate AUKUS?

JASON FALINSKI, FORMER LIBERAL MEMBER FOR MACKELLAR: Tom, we're already taxing Australians at 27 and a half percent of GDP, which is a record amount of taxation in Australia's history. So, Labor wants to pretend that this is DOGE for defence, when in actual fact it confirms that Jim Chalmers is the Rachel Reeves of Australia. They have lost control of the budget. They've lost control of spending. And this is what you get when all your outcomes are based around how much you can spend, and nothing about how you how much you can deliver. So, we're in serious trouble in defence. We're in serious trouble in education. We're in serious trouble in health. Everywhere you look, we're in serious trouble. And this is the canary in the coal mine, quite frankly.

CONNELL: Just casting forward, Patrick, the murmurings have been - a few reports and so on - that there are actually going to be efficiency dividends, but these are spending cuts within departments. Is Labor now getting serious about reining in spending?

GORMAN: We have been serious about effective budget management from the day we were elected, but -

CONNELL: But not actually willing to go spend less money. Was banking of some of the extra revenue. But actually, going in and going to spend less money to a department, is that where you're headed?

GORMAN: You can put it in whatever terms you like. The fact is that we delivered two surpluses that would not have happened under the Coalition, based on the Coalition's own projections. What we are doing is making sure that when we look at the Australian Public Service and all of the programs that our government is operating, we are looking at saying 'how do we do this in the most effective way to make sure we are delivering for the Australian people.' That is what has seen us put in additional investments when it comes to the public service, to make sure we can deliver things like pensions, the National Disability Insurance Scheme and programs like our support for veterans who have served our country. We will keep making sure that we go through looking at how taxpayer money is spent so that we can have the financial capacity to pay for the things that Australians value, like Medicare.

CONNELL: Jason, if we do see these efficiency dividends rolled out, would you be impressed? Would you give Labor some credit? Is this what needs to happen?

FALINSKI: Well, Tom, I'd be absolutely shocked. I mean, Patrick is a serious person representing a clown show of a government. This is a government that has increased public service by tens of thousands of public servants. This is a government that achieved Budget surpluses by increasing off-budget spending. It has increased our debt by $100 billion, or just close to $100 billion, while at the same time it has had record tax revenues from the China boom. It has had tax receipts at 27 and a half percent. It has done everything it could do to waste and mismanage one of the greatest periods in our economic history. It has built nothing for the future. Instead, it has borrowed massively from the future, and now we find ourselves in a position where we cannot actually say for certain to the Australian public and the Australian community that we will be able to afford the budget that is required to deliver defence to keep this nation safe and secure into the future, and that is a very serious position for us to be in as a nation.

CONNELL: You mentioned public service -

FALINSKI: Public servants.

CONNELL: Is it your view that to achieve - public servants, sorry. Is it your view that in order to achieve what the Liberal Party is talking about, which is bringing down the overall tax, but also a sustainable Budget, that the only way to do that as part of it is to still rein in that head count, despite the perception or reality that that policy didn't go well in the last election?

FALINSKI: Tom, the fact of the matter remains, whether you're on my side of the fence or on Patrick's side of the fence, we need government to do more with less. Because the Australian people are not getting value for money out of this government, and quite frankly, they're not getting value for money out of the Victorian, New South Wales, Western Australian, or South Australian -

CONNELL: But just on the public service federally, the Liberal Party need perhaps a new way of doing it. Do they need to go again on that?

FALINSKI: Either the public service needs to do more with what they have, or there needs to be less public servants. Yes, Tom. Look, it's just a mathematical certainty of that being the case. We need more. There are plenty of resources being dedicated to the government sector. They need to produce more. And let me also make one other point for the 99th time, and I'll keep making it. Spending does not become worthwhile just because you call it an investment.

CONNELL: Patrick, childcare pay is going up. I'm interested in where to, ultimately. Because these are temporary wage increases funded by the Federal Government. Is it fair to say Labor would not just remove them altogether and effectively bring down pay significantly, and nor would it pass on the cost to the parents? Would either of those options be pursued by Labor?

GORMAN: Tom, we are a long way away from having to make some of those decisions. We have been really open about the Prime Minister's view of UI share about needing a more universal early childhood system to make sure that as many children as possible can get the benefits of those investments in the early years. What we did do, and the decision we did take, was to support the increase of early childhood workers. So by 15 per cent, the last 5 per cent kicked in today. Now for your average childcare educator, that's an extra $160 in their pocket each week. And the reason we did that is these workers are essential. They were being underpaid, and as a result, we didn't have the workforce we needed in the system. As a result of the changes we have made, we have seen an additional 15,000 people enter into the early childhood education and care system, reversing the decline that we had, which was making it hard for mums and dads around the country, it was making it really hard for them to get a place in childcare.

CONNELL: But we're not that far away from this ending in terms of budgets and preparation. It just seems to me; the only way this ends is a permanent government subsidy, and more spending.

GORMAN: Well, there are already a range of government investments, and I disagree with Jason, this is an investment in the next generation -

CONNELL: But it's money. You're spending money.

GORMAN: It is investing in the next generation of Australians. The next generation of workers -

CONNELL: But it's more -

GORMAN: I won't apologise for investing in young Australians -

CONNELL: Unless you cut the pay of childcare workers, or say parents, you are picking this up from now on, this is baked in spending, isn't it?

FALINSKI: Well, that's what we've been doing.

GORMAN: As I said, this is a good day. This is a good day -

FALINSKI: This is a very bad day.

GORMAN: For the educators of Australia. Some 200,000 Australians are benefiting from this in communities all across the nation. We are celebrating this decision that we have taken to reverse the decline in the sector and to make sure that children can get the care and education that they need. Those decisions you refer to are a while off, but I think -

CONNELL: I'm sure they are being made, you know, about now, next few months.

GORMAN: I think if you go and ask the mums and dads of Australia, they will say they are pleased that these essential workers are getting paid a fair wage.

CONNELL: Is this tricky, Jason, because it's hard to attract workers already -

FALINSKI: No, it's not tricky. It's not tricky, Tom. This is an outrage.

CONNELL: And also parents are paying them a lot -

FALINSKI: It is an outrage.

CONNELL: Okay, but what's the solution?

FALINSKI: We have a childcare system in Australia that treats our children like battery hens. You have one solution for childcare, and that's it. According to the OECD, we have above average public subsidies for childcare, and we have record high - there is no one else in the world who beats Australia for parental contributions to childcare. Nowhere else in the world. So, we have one of, if not the most expensive, childcare systems in the world that is inflexible, uncaring, does not provide what children need in all metrics and outcomes in terms of developmental and educational outcomes. It is not producing what it is meant to do. Parents have no choice. It has reduced women's involvement in the labour force. It is an absurd system that is designed to benefit producers of child care and the unionised work and the unions who control the workforce in the child care centres. We need more flexibility. We need parents to have control over how their children are looked after. We need mothers and fathers around this country to know that they are getting value for money rather than just more public spending, which doesn't become better just because we call it an investment. It is an outrage, and it is about time someone called out our broken childcare system.

GORMAN: I am going to tell you something, Tom. You are not going to see any of Jason's colleagues in the parliament repeat that. He has managed to attack parents who put their children into this service -

CONNELL: [inaudible]

GORMAN: He has managed to attack the people who work in the system. And he has put forward absolutely zero solutions. You won't see any of Jason's colleagues repeat that, but probably a lot of them secretly agree with him.

FALINSKI: Well, let me make this very clear -

CONNELL: And on that note Jason. We have got to end it there.

FALINSKI: - I don't understand how I'm attacking parents, by saying parents should have more choice on how their children get [inaudible] when they're at work.

CONNELL: I did mention it, Jason - I've got to leave it there. We'll get to your solutions next week, maybe, the Jason Falinski childcare plan, next week. Jason, Patrick, always appreciate your time. Thank you.