Transcript by The Hon Alan Tudge MP

Sky News – PVO Newshour

E&OE.

ALAN TUDGE:

G’day Peter.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:

We might be rudely interrupted at some stage sooner, rather than later by Bill Shorten with his massive funding announcement around schools and education. If that happens, I hope we can keep you on the line and come back to you for an immediate Government reaction.

Just to pre-empt it though, what do you think about this idea? He seems to be wanting to re-institute the Gonski funding from years five and six that were cut out of that first budget. Your thoughts?

ALAN TUDGE:

The interesting thing is going to be where he is finding the money to pay for it.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:

I can answer that…

ALAN TUDGE:

They are good at spending money, but they are not very good at managing a budget. And as you know they left us with a massive budget deficit both in the current years and the years ahead, which we are trying to get on top of.

The question is going to be to him; where are you going to fund it from? He has already made all sorts of other commitments. He has made commitments, for example, to supposedly cut the company tax rate. Now what is that going to be funded by?

There are all sorts of other pressures on the budget and meanwhile the Labor Party has put up only a couple of billion dollars’ worth of savings or taxes. The budget is not a magic pudding. You do have to balance it and that is where Labor always gets unstuck.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:

What they are going to say and they have started to pre-empt this to some extent, is they are going to fund it on those things like multinational tax avoidance crack down and some of these other bits and bobs measures.

I spoke to Chris Bowen earlier in the week. I put to him that the line from the Government is that these don’t amount to a hill of beans and he said well $70 billion over the forward estimates, if that is only a hill of beans to the government, well I will take that as a comment.

Their argument, I think, is that these things are fundable based on the various initiatives that they have already announced, include super in that.

ALAN TUDGE:

They have gone back to those pots of money, I think, four or five times already. How many times are they going to spend the small savings that they are going to make from a small tax increase in the multinational tax increase, which I think for memory is only worth a couple of billion dollars.

The same with their supposed superannuation changes. Both of which have considerable challenges to them from a policy perspective and only raise a relatively small amount of money. The key question for Bill Shorten and indeed, the Labor Party, is how are you going to get the budget to stack up?

We have been doing an enormous amount of work, as you know Peter, over the last couple of years to try to find savings, to try to get that budget back under control and we are heading in the right direction.

Labor has blocked almost every single savings measure that we have put up. If they are going to block those savings measures, and they have got all sorts of other funding commitments, all sorts of other commitments which they have made. The numbers simply don’t add up.

Now today, apparently we are going to hear about more billions of dollars of commitments being put towards the budget. As I said, the budget is not a magic pudding.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:

Can I move to another issue and ask you about the same sex marriage plebiscite? It seems like the idea, which has pretty strong support as I understand, inside the Coalition Party Room, we are now going to see a host of people vote against same sex marriage, even if the plebiscite is successful.

Bridget McKenzie has been added to that list today. We have heard Cory Bernardi say it previously, and effectively, Senator Eric Abetz has said the same. Is that appropriate in the context of the whole way, the whole raison d’?tre behind the selling to Australians and to the party room about having a plebiscite on same sex marriage?

ALAN TUDGE:

We have committed, Peter, to having a plebiscite on same sex marriage, should we be re-elected at the upcoming election. But we haven’t worked out the details of how that is going to work yet, in terms of what the question will be and what the parameters around it will be.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:

But it sounds like it won’t work. It almost doesn’t seem to matter to some of these MPs. It doesn’t matter what the question is or what the outcome is, they will vote against it anyway.

Is your view that they should only abstain rather than vote against it, given that it has been put in the hands of the Australian people? Because someone like me wonders, why even bother having a plebiscite if MPs are already making up their mind?

ALAN TUDGE:

Let me say a couple of points. Firstly, over the next few months we will be going through the proper Cabinet process and indeed then a party room process to determine exactly what the parameters of this might look like.

But the second point I would say, is that I can provide a guarantee to you and indeed, to the Australian people, that should a plebiscite question succeed on same sex marriage then we will get same sex marriage in this country as a matter of law.

It will go through the House, it will go through the Senate, even if there are some individuals that you have mentioned, who may not heed the wishes of the Australian people in a plebiscite.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:

Is that because of front bench solidarity? Is it one of those situations where the front bench will be bound and therefore the numbers will be there because it was already going to be a relatively close vote anyway?

ALAN TUDGE:

It is already a relatively close vote anyway and my view is, if we have a plebiscite, we do that for a reason. We find out what the Australian public want to do and then the parliamentarians will enact that and indeed, the parliament will heed the wishes of the Australian people.

Peter, I am a person who has traditionally held the view that marriage is between a man and a woman but certainly, if the Australian people, through a plebiscite, say that they want same sex marriage, then I am not going to be seeking to frustrate their desires in that plebiscite.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:

And your view is that there will be other people on perhaps the more conservative side of the party, like yourself, who would be more inclined toward that, even if there is the occasional red-herring that goes the other way?

ALAN TUDGE:

It is still very early days on this. I am just absolutely certain though, that if we win the subsequent election and there is a plebiscite and the plebiscite is successful, that we will get same sex marriage. I think that is the bottom line and I think the Australian public can be very reassured about that, if indeed they are concerned about what the outcome of a result of a plebiscite might lead to.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:

What is your view on the decision of the former Prime Minister, you were his Parliamentary Secretary as well of course, Tony Abbott, to continue his parliamentary career?

ALAN TUDGE:

I am very pleased that Tony Abbott is staying in the parliament. I think that he has got, still, an enormous amount to offer the parliament in terms of his ideas, as well as mentoring some of the younger people.

I know that certainly pre-Menzies, it was not uncommon for Australian Prime Ministers to stay on in the parliament having finished their prime ministership.

Indeed, in the UK it is still very common for them to do so. I think Winston Churchill did so, Margaret Thatcher, Gordon Brown – were all Prime Ministers who when their time finished as being Prime Minister, they nevertheless stayed on in the parliament, continued to make a contribution and mentored younger members of parliament.

I think that Tony Abbott will do a good job in doing exactly that.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:

There is more scope to do that in the UK, with 600 odd House of Common’s seats to have wise heads mentoring younger people. It is a bit harder in a smaller parliamentary environment though, you would agree. Nonetheless, presumably there’s enough young people around to be mentored, despite there being a smaller number?

ALAN TUDGE:

This can be a pretty lonely place, actually, Parliament House. For those that come into this place and don’t know that many people, it is often good to have a mentor to assist them and provide advice and I was certainly the beneficiary of some mentors and still am, in my parliamentary career.

I think that people like Tony Abbott can provide a very valuable role in that regard, as well as still being a contributor to the public…

PETER VAN ONSELEN:

…On that, what about a return to the front bench? I know that is a matter for the Prime Minister, but in your view, is a return to the front bench something that shouldn’t be ruled out?

ALAN TUDGE:

I don’t think he will be returning to the front bench, but ultimately that is a decision for the Prime Minister.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:

Okay, fair enough. I want to move to the economic debate. This will heat up, particularly in the wake of this funding announcement that we are expecting shortly from Bill Shorten.

But on the weekend, Scott Morrison spoke to Paul Kelly and I on Australian Agenda, he gave a stronger signal yet that there is a chance that there would be serious taxation reform before the next election. Do you get the sense that this is something the Government is gearing up for?

ALAN TUDGE:

We are going through a process, as you know Peter, to look at the tax system and to reform it with a view to making the overall system more efficient and therefore generating greater economic growth and more jobs.

That is our ambition and we certainly, as you would have heard from the Treasurer, it is likely that we will have a package at some stage which we will then take to the election. We are looking across the board and we haven’t settled on anything yet.

But the key objective of our overall effort is not to increase taxes and not to increase the burden on anybody, but to have a more efficient tax system – ideally by lowering some of the income taxes which have already become quite high and become a disadvantage to working harder.

We want a system which does encourage people to work harder, encourages economic growth, and through that of course, you become a wealthier country and you have more jobs. Ultimately you often have more tax revenue as a result as well.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:

In terms of becoming a republic, why do you think we have to wait until the Queen dies before we can actually have this debate?

ALAN TUDGE:

Peter, I am a person who would support a republic, but I think if we are to have a change, that is has to come up from the grassroots.

I think when we look back at the 1999 effort to change the constitution and become a republic, I think one of its big failings was that it was seen as being driven from the top, from the leadership, from the elite if you like…

PETER VAN ONSELEN:

I don’t disagree with that.

ALAN TUDGE:

…rather than being a grassroots movement.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:

How do we know? I guess my question is – I agree, that was a failure of that referendum, which ironically the head of the RM at the time is now the Prime Minister – but how do we know what constitutes a grassroots push?

If we held a plebiscite for example, we would find out how many Australians are for this or against it. Would that be a way to try to get a sense of the grassroots? If not, what practical way do we do this?

ALAN TUDGE:

I don’t think there is any grassroots movement at all for a republic. I was out at Australia Day in my electorate, I went to four or five events and I spoke to hundreds of people. I don’t think the issue came up once, to be honest, despite it being in the media.

I also think that, just going back to your question about the Queen, is that she is such a revered, respected and loved figure. For many people she has been the one great constant in their life over a period of enormous change in society over the last 50 or more years.

I think that while she is in the throne, that there won’t be that grassroots movement for change. By the way, I do think that when she finally exits the throne, I think that will create a very vigorous discussion about whether that is the right time to start that discussion. Until then, I just don’t think there is.

Peter, I will just make this other point, you know how hard it is to get any change to the constitution. We have only had eight succeed out of 44 referendums in our history.

The last one that did succeed was in 1977 and it was just over the very uncontroversial topic of the retirement ages of judges. You have to go back 49 years ago, to the last referendum which succeeded which had a substantive impact.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:

I hear you. Just very quickly, because we are well overtime on this, Tony Abbott says that the next generation of royals is likely to stimulate further interest in the monarchy rather than the republic. It sounds like you are not really on the same page on that one.

You see a change when there is a change of the guard at the top of the monarchy?

ALAN TUDGE:

Certainly William and Kate, I think, are very well liked and loved by younger people and indeed by people across Australia. But we just have to wait and see. I do think that when the Queen’s reign comes to an end, I think that will be a time when the republican debate kicks off again.

But until that time, I just don’t sense the grassroots movement towards it. Frankly, for most people it is just not a priority even if they would like to see it done, as I would. Is it our great national priority at the moment? I don’t think it is.

We have got much more pressing priorities around economic growth, around jobs, around national security, that is what our focus is and that is what the Australian people want us to focus on.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:

Alan Tudge, always appreciate your insight, thanks for joining us once again. Cheers.

ALAN TUDGE:

Thanks so much Peter.