Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister
SHARRI MARKSON, HOST: I want to bring in my political panel this evening; Nationals Senate Leader, Bridget McKenzie, and Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, Patrick Gorman. Welcome to you both. Look, let's start with the big news today that Joe Biden has had to cancel his trip to Australia to deal with this debt ceiling crisis. I don't want to ask about your disappointment that the Quad has been cancelled. But I want to ask you about what this means if the US doesn't reach an agreement to raise the debt ceiling, the US could go into recession, this would have a global impact. Patrick Gorman, how concerned are you that this could mean that Australia might go into a recession?
PATRICK GORMAN, ASSISTANT MINISTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER: Well, what we've known, Sharri, for a number of months, as we've framed the Budget that the Treasurer Jim Chalmers handed down last week, is that we do face a very uncertain global economy. This is just the latest sign in a range of signs that things are precarious, and we've kept that in mind. We've framed our Budget for our economic circumstances here in Australia. Now, I don't want to prejudge where the US Congress will land on their decisions around their debt ceiling, but I think it's obviously the appropriate decision for the US President to be there to make sure that he can be in those negotiations. Here in Australia, we are fortunate to have a well-regulated banking sector. So, we haven't seen some of the challenges that we've seen in the United States. We are fortunate to have a strong export economy. And I come from the great resources state of Western Australia, which has obviously seen us through both the COVID pandemic and other economic shocks in recent times. We've got the fortunate outcome that we have lower interest rates than the United States and quite strong employment, which we saw again in the Budget figures that were released last Tuesday. So, our circumstances are different.
MARKSON: Let's bring in Bridget Mackenzie on this now. I mean, our circumstances are different, but the fact remains that we're in a global economic climate here. And if the Democrats and the Republicans can't reach an agreement to raise the debt ceiling - and it's coming down to the wire, there's some warnings that from the 1st of June the US Government could run out of money - Bridget McKenzie, what do you think? How could this affect Australia? We've we've got a budget surplus at the moment, but these forecasts would be, in effect meaningless, if the US does go into a serious economic crisis.
BRIDGET MCKENZIE, LEADER OF THE NATIONALS IN THE SENATE: Yeah, Sharri, I think you have hit the nail on the head. The President having to head home for those urgent talks are critical, not just for the United States economy, but indeed western economies more broadly. We are very intertwined in the global trade environment that we now exist in. But it doesn't make us immune from what occurs in other countries like the US. But I think the Budget handed down last week by the Labor Government doesn't do enough to put downward pressure on inflation and increase in productivity to actually buffer us against issues that we are seeing in the global economy. So, I wish President Biden all the best to resolve solve these issues because we do not want to see the US slide into recession because it would have significant impacts on the global economy.
MARKSON: Yeah, it's a bit of a deadlock at the moment. A standoff between the Republicans and the Democrats. Now, let's look at this new government analysis that's drilling holes in the Opposition's policies unveiled in Peter Dutton's Budget Reply last week. This analysis, which was on the front page of the Australian today, showed that more than 50,000 Australians would be pushed back onto welfare support payments under Dutton's plan to raise the income-free area for Jobseeker recipients. Patrick, this is obviously Government analysis, showing that there'd be 50,000 more people back onto welfare. How does this analysis work? Why would these people go back onto welfare?
GORMAN: It's very simple logic that if you expand the eligibility for Jobseeker payments, then you'll have more people on those payments. And that's the policy that the Opposition Leader announced last week. We had to make difficult decisions in this Budget. We accept that that's our responsibility to make those difficult decisions. But when we were making them, we chose to put some money into making Jobseeker that little bit more, by increasing it by $40 a fortnight and by expanding eligibility for single parents to be on the Single Parenting Payment until their youngest child reaches the age of 14. We thought that was the place that it was most appropriate to put funds. If Mr. Dutton, Bridget McKenzie and others want to expand eligibility to put more people onto Jobseeker, then that's a question for them.
MARKSON: Yeah. So, Bridget, Dutton's plan is to allow people to work an extra five to 10 hours a week before they're kicked off Jobseeker. Do you accept this Government modelling that shows 50,000 more people will be on welfare?
MCKENZIE: Well, Sharri, we will never stop thinking that getting people working is going to transform their lives and make them and their families and their future better. That's just a fundamental fact. We are in a tight labour market and there are jobs that are needing to be filled right across our economy. So, we do believe, fundamentally that people who are currently on Jobseeker should be able to take an extra shift or two in in a working week and not effectively pay for 60% or 60 cents in every dollar that they earn in that additional shift. And that's a fair -
MARKSON: But at a time when the Opposition is mounting an argument about the Government increasing spending and how this adds and contributes to inflation, do you think it would be problematic and inflationary to have 50,000 more people on welfare?
MCKENZIE: Well, I would have to see the assumptions that the Government has used with this modelling. It's interesting that they've used Government resources and Departmental resources to attack Opposition policy, which is seeking to get people into the workforce, rather than actually using those resources to help people who are currently on Jobseeker into a job. So, I'd like to see the assumptions. But on the costings, Sharri, we've now seen the assumptions within the Labor Government's Budget, and that will feed into appropriate costings for our policy. At the end of the day, a high-inflation economy hurts the poor the most and for the longest. So, we need to get more people into work.
MARKSON: Let's move on to the story in the SMH today, the Sydney Morning Herald that shows that support for the Voice to Parliament is dropping. It's now at 53%. This is a trend where support has been falling. A lot of the polls are showing this. Patrick, there are now calls, we've seen Julian Leeser on Sky News today say that the Government needs to come back to the negotiating table and find a model that has bipartisan support. Let's have a look at what he had to say.
JULIAN LEESER, MEMBER FOR BEROWRA (CLIP): I support the Yes vote. I support the Voice. I want to see this succeed. But I think where things are at the moment, we're seeing not just one poll here, but a trend over time. The issue that keeps being raised is this issue around the provision to deal with Executive Government. It's why I think that at this point, the Government needs to change the amendment in order to win the referendum. I don't want to see the referendum put and see it fail. I think if you remove some of the Constitutional issues off the table by making a couple of amendments that I'm suggesting, you put this on a much safer footing.
MARKSON: Patrick Gorman, you're the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister. Anthony Albanese must be getting worried that the Voice is on track to fail. Will the Government come back to the negotiating table, revisit this inclusion of Executive Government as Julian Leeser's just suggested?
GORMAN: The Government will keep our commitment that we made during the election, which was to implement the Statement from the Heart in full. We will keep the commitment that we made to respond the call from the Uluru Statement from the Heart from 2017, which is ignored by both Prime Ministers Turnbull and Morrison. And we have always said that this was not a Government initiative, nor a Labor Party initiative. This was a request put to the Commonwealth Government from the Indigenous peoples of Australia and we have responded to it.
MARKSON: But you're not worried about it failing now? You must be worried, given where the polls are at?
GORMAN: I know, as all of my colleagues do, this will be a big change. But it's a change which time has come and I'll be committing myself to the campaign to make sure that the Yes vote is successful. But I just want to be clear; last year it was Bridget and the National Party who walked away from the negotiating table. This year it was Peter Dutton and the Liberal Party who walked away from the negotiating table. That door was always open.
MARKSON: But instead of having these conversations about who's to blame for walking away, isn't it better at this point to go back to that table, one last chance, as Julian Leeser suggests?
GORMAN: I've got great respect for Julian Leeser and his work that he's put into this very important Constitutional reform over many, many years. But unfortunately, it's not the Leader of the Liberal Party, nor the Leader of the National Party who's making these calls. They are not engaged in this process. They've chosen to walk away. Now, I hope that the Australian people can see that, yes, there's some political interest from those in the Opposition parties to maybe scope out some political advantage by being on the no side, but actually, the national interest sits on us all coming together and getting this up.
MCKENZIE: Seriously, Patrick? Honestly.
MARKSON: Bridget McKenzie - have a response here? Do you want to respond to that, Bridget McKenzie?
MCKENZIE: Yeah, absolutely, Sharri. I mean, this is just ego and hubris on on behalf of The Labor Party. Constitutional questions to the Australian public need to be held respectfully. And what Patrick has just displayed in his response is the assumption that the Yes case has all the moral virtue, has all the positive benefit, without actually taking those who have serious concerns, Constitutional concerns, legal and moral concerns, with the proposition put forward, are justifiably able to say, 'no, we do not think changing our Constitution in this manner is an appropriate course of action to recognise First Australians.' And I think the way he framed his answer to you, Sharri, belies The Labor Party's view of having a respectful two-sided debate going forward. I think if the question being put was, 'do we recognise first Australians in our Constitution?' The polling would show 95% yes. But there are fundamental issues with the question, and the more Australians are getting to see the detail, the more they do not want to see their nation divided on race. And I think Albanese and the Labor Government wanted people to slip this through on the vibe, and Australians are smarter than that.
MARKSON: And that debate will have a long way to go before the Referendum later this year. Bridget McKenzie and Patrick Gorman. Great to have you both.
