TOM CONNELL, HOST: Budget Week. Who better to break it all down for us and give us the scoop on what's really happening? The Assistant Minister to the The Prime Minister, Patrick Gorman. In other words, man who knows everything about what's about to unfold. And the former Liberal MP Jason Falinski, who, according to himself, knows absolutely nothing. Gentlemen, thank you both for your time, as ever. Patrick, why don't we start with you? How would you sum up this Budget? Because I've done some rough calculations. What we know, I reckon you're spending an extra 20 billion over forward estimates. Is it a bit of a spending Budget when we go beyond this financial year?
PATRICK GORMAN, ASSISTANT MINISTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER: Well, Tom, this Budget will lay the foundations for the future. To make sure that we have the jobs and opportunities that Australians want and that we act on important things which we know are essential to our economic future. Acting on climate change, investing more in education and supporting the most vulnerable. We also will have to respond to the world as it is in 2023. That means acknowledging imported inflation as a result of a war in Europe, making sure that we address what we can to ensure stability in the financial system, and also make sure that we clean up the mess that we inherited from Jason, the Liberal Party, the National Party, where when we came to office just under a year ago, there was a big pile, a trillion dollars of debt left there and no plan.
CONNELL: There's all that debt, so, why more spending on top of it, then? Is that what's going to happen? We're talking about still more spending and saving or revenue over the next four years.
GORMAN: You'll see all of those details outlined in the Budget, and I know, Tom you'll be -
CONNELL: Can you just give a rough indication? I don't need a number, but, you know.
GORMAN: But we've done the hard work of looking for savings and also the hard work of spending restraint. And we are determined not to repeat the mistakes of those who came before.
CONNELL: I won't go for the blink again because last time you said as soon as I said 'blink twice,' all you could think about was blinking. Jason, I haven't forgotten about you. Where do you think the Coalition is settling on this? Because on one level, they're sort of saying, 'help everyone out with cost of living,' but also Budget restraint. Where should they settle in terms of line and length? From a fair bit we know so far in terms of what's in the Budget.
JASON FALINSKI: Sure, look, the first thing is that Patrick and his mates should stop lying about the trillion dollar debt. More than half of it was inherited from the Rudd/Gillard Government and every time we tried to do something about it, they opposed it. We handed them a Budget in surplus. They're about to announce that the fact of the matter remains that they have added to the inflationary problems and at some point they're going to have to stop blaming the war in Ukraine and they probably should have stopped that six months ago. So, this will be a big spending Budget that will pretend to be helping people, but will be driving up inflation, which actually hurts the most vulnerable people in our country and especially those people on low incomes. And if you don't believe me, just go and read a history book about the 1970s because that's what we're about to live through again.
CONNELL: All right, well, Budget-wise, structurally, I don't think it's come out of deficit. Accepting it looks like Labor is a beneficiary of what's happening on a lot of one-offs that get them into surplus. But from what you said there, Jason, basically you're saying that as a Coalition, you would be settling into saying this is too much spending. That's the focus. Rather than saying it's not helping enough, it's the spending and the inflationary pressure which is the bigger risk and the bigger error, in your view.
FALINSKI: Well, Tom, of course the problem that I have and that you have is that Patrick's not blinking at the moment. So, we don't know how much they're spending or not spending. But as a matter of course, the best strategy is productivity-enhancing reforms in the Budget and across the economy, which allows you to pay more people more money without driving up prices. But what we see from people like Sally McManus from the Australia Institute, from the Greens and indeed from Labor's own backbench, is increasing demands for more and more money to be spent in those parts of the economy that aren't producing very much. And the result of that is going to be that prices will go higher and the people who will get hurt most by that are not the comfortable insiders like Sally McManus. It'll be people on low incomes, people who rely on welfare and people who just frankly don't have much choice. So, Budget should always be about how can we expand opportunities for all Australia.
CONNELL: Go on, Patrick. I'll give you a right of reply there, Patrick.
GORMAN: Jason did something quite extraordinary in his first answer, which was to say that the fact of a trillion dollars of inherited debt was a lie. But then to add to that with a lie of his own, of saying that we inherited a Budget in surplus when Labor came to Government. Now, Tom, even your viewers, who are the strongest supporters of the Morrison-Frydenberg-Falinski Government, would acknowledge that they did not have a surplus in any of the years in which they were in Government. And indeed, I know Jason said - I think the date was September the 10th, 2019 - he said that we've returned to surplus. Now, it wasn't true when Jason said it in the Parliament. It wasn't true when he said it on Sky this morning. It never happened. And I think it's important that your viewers know that.
CONNELL: They were basically on track. But did you ever get it back in the black mug? Jason, do you have that buried away somewhere? Does the Earl Grey go in there on a Saturday morning?
FALINSKI: You know what? I keep looking for it, Tom, because you have offered me thousands of dollars for that mug. Not as much money to get Labor out of the hole that it's digging itself.
CONNELL: Did I?
FALINSKI: What? You did. Oh, now you're denying it on air? Oh my God.
CONNELL: Thousands?
GORMAN: Thousands?
FALINSKI: Thousands? That's right. If not, I'll just stick it on eBay, but alas, I can't find it. I'm sorry. But of course, what Patrick is ignoring is there was this little thing called the global pandemic. And every time Josh Frydenberg tried to do the responsible thing, and did the responsible thing of ending things like Jobkeeper early, Jim Chalmers, Anthony Albanese, even this little-known backbencher, who's now risen to positions of giant power, would complain that we were going to drive the Australian economy into a chasm. It didn't happen, and when they got elected more and when they got elected, the budget had been in cash surplus for three months.
CONNELL: It is true that Labor wanted to spend more in the pandemic. I'll call that a fair point. I want to ask one final thing of you, Patrick. Stage three of the income tax cuts. Do you think that's a debate that needs to be had in a year's time because the economic situation could be very different? I understand we're not having it now. That's fine, but should that be something that really gets looked at again next Budget, before it finally will take effect?
GORMAN: We've said time and time again, our position hasn't changed on those stage three tax cuts. I've acknowledged on this programme before that when it came into the Parliament, I voted for those stage three tax cuts as part of a broader package to make sure that we didn't hold back relief for those who are relying on those income tax cuts in stages one and two. What you'll see tomorrow night in our Budget is our long term expect.
CONNELL: But I understand all that, we're nearly out of time. Does another debate need to happen any time, given how fast-moving and how different the economy might look right back then? Is that what will happen? Labor will take a proper look at it before it finally takes effect.
GORMAN: We're not opening up a debate on that, Tom. We've said our position hasn't changed.
CONNELL: You're not opening up in a year either, so it's done. Is that what you're saying?
GORMAN: I'm saying we're not opening up a debate on that. Our position hasn't changed.
CONNELL: I know you're not now.
GORMAN: You're inviting me to engage in a hypothetical debate about where the economy will be in a year's time, which I'm not going to do.
CONNELL: But what you're saying, you're not opening it up. Done, it's jammed shut, it's not going to change next year?
GORMAN: You're asking me to engage on things, or what we may do in the future. And what I've said very clearly is our position hasn't changed. Where, however, I'll acknowledge our position has changed, I'm very pleased to see, is we have changed our position in terms of the age cut-off for the Single Parenting Payment. Single parents with kids between the ages of eight and 14 -
CONNELL: All right.
GORMAN: - nothing was done for them by Jason's Government. $176 extra a fortnight. That's good news.
CONNELL: Jason made a noise there. I'm already in trouble, but, Jason, you get 30 seconds to respond to that. Is that spending you would back?
FALINSKI: Well, let's not forget who made that cut, which was Julia Gillard and the Labor Party. Secondly, why would you bother asking Pat about it? They said nothing about franking credits, they've got rid of that. They said nothing about multi-employer bargaining. They've done that. They will get rid of stage three tax cuts and it will be a disincentive for people to continuing to work and add to our economy and the opportunities that all Australians can enjoy.
CONNELL: Okay, and in 10 seconds; your answer on the Single Parent Payment. Do you think it's good? Money well spent?
FALINSKI: Tom, we haven't seen the details of that package. There's been a broad announcement -
CONNELL: We've just heard this morning.
FALINSKI: - how much it's going to cost and we don't know, and we don't know what's involved. So, I'm not going to back something in until you tell me what the details are.
CONNELL: Until I do? Alright. Well, I'll let the Government do that.
FALINSKI: Well, until Labor does. Anyone, for that matter.
CONNELL: We'll do that. Anyone? All right. Anyone knows, send Jason an email, he's ready to go through it and we'll talk in two weeks. Jason, thank you for taking my insults with your usual calm manner. And Patrick, similar to you as well.
FALINSKI: Thank you for agreeing to buy my mug.
GORMAN: Insults, compliments; I'll take it all, Tom.
CONNELL: Alright, Patrick, Jason: thank you.