00:00:02
Speaker 1: Greenlin Live on Sky News Australia.
00:00:06
Speaker 2: I am a little younger, but I just squeaked in some primary school years in the seventies. Good on you, Chris for telling the truth. Good evening, Welcome to the program. Here's what's coming up tonight on Kredlin. Labour's being pitched to Rain in the NDS. It's a runaway scheme that Labor itself set up to fail under Julia Gillard. Now I was in Camber at the time. I'll explain the history in a moment, but I think they're playing politics still today, trying to run through changes in budget week. I'll pull that Apart to all those who wrote off one Nation after Monday Nights slight drop in News poll, well what do you say to nights to the Sky News poll that's got one Nation drawing level with Labor on primary vote. Now this is huge. That analys us with Tom Connell coming out, plus more on the backlash against UK born to doctor Beth Upton, a biological male now registered as a female doctor. In News Wales and Part two tonight, I might sit down with Peter Costello. We cover a lot of ground the upcoming budget energy his Frank assessment on the performance of Jim Chalmers and warning bells over state debt, particularly in Victoria.
00:01:16
Speaker 1: I actually think the rating agencies have been very easy on.
00:01:19
Speaker 3: Some of these states.
00:01:21
Speaker 2: You think it's worse.
00:01:22
Speaker 1: They assume that somehow the Commonwealth government's going to come in and rescue these states.
00:01:29
Speaker 2: Costello does not miss. But first, finally, finally, the Albanzer government is inching towards reforming the NDIS. But it's more about striking a pose, I'm sorry to say, than making a difference with the hard decisions subject to further work and the agreement of the states. Because under the scheme as designed by the then very desperate PM Julia Gillard not long before she was rolled by Kevin Rudd, the states wheel the power, but it's the Commonwealth that writes the checks.
00:01:58
Speaker 4: Before we get.
00:01:58
Speaker 2: Into some of the detail on the announcements today, here's the basic problem. Now, for years, disability advocates had demanded a national scheme Medicare. They wouldn't medicare for people with disabilities because the states had been inconsistent and to be honest, inadequate about the provision of disability services. People with the same disabilities got different services. Depending on where they lived and often whether they could get into a relatively small number of institutionalized providers. And that's a really important point when we talk about the NDS. It only came into being because the states were not looking after people as they should. They were cutting corners and they were cutting budgets. Now at the time, back in twenty thirteen, there was so much good will. As pitched by the advocates. The NDIS we were told would be modeled on the state accident compensation schemes, where premiums covered treatment designed to keep people back to almost full health. And that's how you get the term insurance in the title, even though there was nothing insurance like the NDIS at the time. Advocates argue that the NDIS would more or less pay for itself by turning large numbers of people who would previously have been left on the scrap heap with life changing disabilities into workers rather than pensioners. The idea was that the government would pay premiums on behalf of all Australians and that people with very serious disabilities would be funded to receive the services that they needed from high quality professional providers. But it was never going to work like this, as the Opposition argued at the time. They supported the scheme, sure, but they felt the whole establishment of it, pulling it together, creating it. They argued, it was rushed, indeed panicked.
00:04:00
Speaker 5: The National Disability Insurance Scheme itself is.
00:04:05
Speaker 4: A work in progress.
00:04:06
Speaker 6: It is a building site. Much is yet to be done.
00:04:11
Speaker 4: Much of the design work, indeed, is.
00:04:14
Speaker 3: Yet to be completed. We still don't know.
00:04:18
Speaker 5: Who will be eligible for the NDIS. We don't know what is covered by the NDIS. We don't know the extent of coverage by the NDIS. We don't know the precise role of the states in the operations of the NDIS, if any. Indeed, the very nature of the scheme itself is yet to be determined.
00:04:48
Speaker 2: It was all done deliberately by Guillit in an election year and without very strong management. The numbers on the scheme is Abbitt warned at the time it was Opposition leader or they were inevitably going to soar and along with it budget costs and what they received from the scheme was inevitably going to expand beyond what was strictly necessary. Because when we saw this with pink Bats under Labor too routers and scammers can't help being attracted to big pots of government money. Now, Originally the NDIAS was meant to cost some thirteen billion a year, half from the Commonwealth, half from the States, but desperate to sign on the States, Gillard agreed that any uplifting costs would be paid for by Canberra, which immediately introduced the incentive of states to cost shift to the Commonwealth. So where are we now, Well, currently there's almost eight hundred thousand people on the INDIS, so that's double those original expectations costs, or they're running at almost fifty billion dollars that is four times the original budget. There are literally tens of thousands of INDIS providers now ninety center of them they are not even registered. And there's way too many scammers and crooks. Over ten percent of all boys in Australia age five to eight are on the NDIS for autism or developmental delays, and taxpayer fund at NDIS services will they include things like getting a lawn mode, a trip to the pictures, even a cruise ship holiday. Now it's a mess. And because Julia Gillard, as I said, was desperate for a deal to give a failing government some sort of legacy agreeing to the Commonwealth covering almost all the funding increases. As I said, the states now provide less than thirty percent of total funding to the NDIS and many this is always going to happen. They have shunted away the services that they were supposed to maintain onto the commonwealth, but cleaning it ups near impossible because of the governance of the scheme. It is a nightmare. It's run by the mob called NDIA, the National Disability Insurance Agency, and they're mostly disability advocates appointed by state and federal government. There's no proper ministerial accountability, there's no proper apartment, and no one fronts estimates in the Senate in the usual way, so very little real financial security. In other words, there's no one really in charge, no one really to take responsibility. And ultimately, you, as taxpayers, will you pick up the tab as services that will never be enough, at least for the advocates and the recipients. At the heart of today's announcement is a plan to reassess every participant against new criteria for what counts as functional capacity. The aim by Labor is to get those numbers down to about six hundred thousand. But as always with this mob, the devil's in the detail, and that detail is yet to be worked out. In any event, these new arrangements won't be in place until January twenty twenty eight. That's eighteen months away, conveniently after the next election. Now what worried me most about today it is how genuine the government really is here, how genuine they are to reform the NDIS. Because I was dismayed to hear that they want to ram all of these proposed changes through the Parliament in budget week. Rushing a complex policy like the NDIS is what got labor into this mess in the first place, and doing it again. No, and I hope I am wrong here, but this just says to me this is smoke and mirrors accounting by Labor and fake We're getting tough budget spin.
00:08:49
Speaker 6: All right.
00:08:50
Speaker 2: The Pharao by election shaping up as a real chest not just for the coalition partners, not the lives of Naths only, but also for One Nation and the allbreed teal Michelle Milf And just to highlight how much money Millthorpe's strowing around, have a look at the table on the screen This is the last ninety days of the advertising spend for all four candidates on meta. So this is the ads they're running across Facebook and all the other meta platforms. Now it is current as of Friday. And just look at how much the Teal is outstripping her opponents with her media buy. The Teals spending are whopping sixty six point six thousand dollars, the Libs four thousand, but that's twenty seven hundred and one Nation's David Farley, Well, he's spending least just over two thousand dollars advertising on Facebook and elsewhere. Millthorpe, as you know, is bankrolled by Climbate two hundred. They're pushing hard to raise her a million dollars for the seat. And she's also got an army of activists flying in from Sydney to help out on the ground. Now will it work? We'll see the preference flows here will be crucial. I've got Tom Connell coming up to take us through the deals that have been done. And to all those commentators, is said on Monday, one Nation was done out of that news poll. Think again, hold your horses, I said at the time. I want to see the trend before I'm going to call it. Well, there's a new poll today, Sky News Pulse poll and it's got One Nation now level with Labor on primary vote. That's why when you want to talk about politics, real experience matters. All right, let's get into all the detail here. There's some good stuff coming. Sky's chief election analyst, Tom Connor. We're going to pull apart the Sky Pulse poll if we can. First, Tom, you've heard me just then on the One Nation surge. Though people out there Monday saying it's all over, you know, they're gone News poll that showed there was a draw in the One Nation primary. But you've got a poll now that says they're level peaking with the Albanizer government. What's going on?
00:11:09
Speaker 7: Yeah, well, there are always different polls, Peter, but our support for One Nation has tracked along fairly consistently, perhaps bounced around a little bit less than most. These are the latest figures here. So one Nation and Labor for the first time a level. Remember the coalition when they got level with One Nation, we thought, well this last look at this twenty seven each.
00:11:27
Speaker 4: What's interesting about.
00:11:27
Speaker 7: This is label was thirty four and a half at the last election, so seven and a half percent, or have fifth of their support since that election is gone one nation up too, which is a pretty significant movement in one poll. The Conservative coalition is it's stagnant. Yes, it's steady, but it's really stagnant and they're not getting the pick up when Labour lose vote, which would be crucial to them. If you add the three to the coalition instead of going to two to one nation, suddenly they're a lot closer together.
00:11:53
Speaker 4: So that's the concern. Out of this poll.
00:11:55
Speaker 7: The Greens the highest we've had in sky News poles as well, two party preferred.
00:12:00
Speaker 4: Well, we've got our two options.
00:12:01
Speaker 7: Let's go to the one that's closest first of all, and that's Labor versus one Nation. As you see here fifty two to forty eight. So that's a big closing from last time. It was fifty five forty five last time and we had this. And the other one is Labor versus the Coalition. Again, this has closed since last time and since that election. It was fifty five to forty five at the electional very close to that, and you can see it's fifty three forty seven.
00:12:24
Speaker 4: Interesting as well when you break down.
00:12:26
Speaker 7: Of course, the support when it comes to one nation or Pauline Hanson specifically as the leader compared to Anthony Albanezi. So she is in terms of the preferred leader here as you can see, she's actually the preferred leader for fifty to sixty four year olds, for those who label themselves working class voters.
00:12:46
Speaker 4: Just to be important on how we sort of mentioned that.
00:12:48
Speaker 7: And whilst outa Metro has labor as the lead there, they're not all the.
00:12:52
Speaker 4: Same those seats.
00:12:52
Speaker 7: That points to a close enough contest where label would be concerned about losing those out of suburban seats they hung on to them for example, and that's out Australian state election, Peter.
00:13:01
Speaker 4: But with a very popular leader.
00:13:02
Speaker 7: So the overall leader should mention for Anthony Elbanezi is fifty to thirty nine versus paul and Hanson with eleven undecided. But fascinating some of those demographics that say Pauline Hanson who's in the Senate. Of course we've got to mention that, but they say she'd be a better Prime minister.
00:13:18
Speaker 2: Just leave that tile up if you could, tom that preferred PM tyle, because I want to make the point to people at home that is where the Abbot Army or the Howard battler traditionally came from. So that is a very happy hunting ground for Liberals who want to win elections, and its diabolical for them in opposition if they cannot get that sort of vote block in Why is Labour's primary vote falling?
00:13:43
Speaker 7: If you look at what happened in the last electoral cycle, Labour's primary vote was relatively low in twenty two and that was pretty similar in twenty twenty five. What do they take to the election campaign? Not a lot of major change, Peter. So if it's as steady as she goes government, but it's not going all that steadily. If you look at the economy, if you look at inflation, it was under control and then it wasn't you know, the big issues in people's lives have changed for the worst. So it makes sense that Labour's vote would go down. This would always be the opportunity you'd think as well, normally for the Coalition, and this is the concern for them that Labour's Vote's gone down seven and a half percentage points and the fact that that has not gone to the Coalition, that it has lost a vote in a net sense as well.
00:14:27
Speaker 4: So the conditions are obviously there.
00:14:29
Speaker 7: This doesn't mean labor can't recover, but it does mean they're clearly so far. The government and just the state of the economy in the nation, well, things are a lot harder than they were a bit more than a year ago.
00:14:40
Speaker 4: So that and of itself is pretty logical.
00:14:43
Speaker 7: If someone said here's where inflation is a year later, you'd say, well, gee, labor must be struggling. What wouldn't be as easy to predict back then is the surge of one nation.
00:14:53
Speaker 2: Labor. Of course, to try and blame everything in terms of the budget wise, inflation and fuel on Donald Trump, and the voters in those poles are not coming with them on that. We've got a resolve pole that sees one nation in Victoria is in trench. That'll be a problem for the Libs at the state election in November. But before that, of course, we've got this Faro by election. The preference deals here are critical Tom the Libs in the Nats, they are preferencing one nation ahead of the Teal. She calls herself an independent, Michelle that Millthorpe. We all know where she comes from. She's a teal. How material will this preference flow be on Saturday Night in a couple of weeks.
00:15:34
Speaker 7: Well, it's going to be significant because one nation will not get any help of course from the Greens, and their vote might be boosted up because Labour's not running. The Greens traditionally run ninety ten against one nation if it's anyone they can stand, so that's how you'd expect it to run for Michelle Milthorpe. So there's a disadvantage there and one nation and the rest of the candidates might go okay, maybe it splits the rest of the vote. So if they're pretty level with Michelle Millthorpe, one nation has to get help in the Liberals and Nationals.
00:16:03
Speaker 4: So that's crucial for them.
00:16:05
Speaker 7: If we look at the last time that they were given an advantage over Independence and Labor as well, in that South Australian election, it wasn't something Liberal Party voters just obeyed.
00:16:16
Speaker 4: Now they went at about two thirds one third.
00:16:19
Speaker 7: That still helps, but that's not as solid as when you get voters that follow those out of vote cards in a really disciplined manner of sort of. You know, I think you'd agree, probably Peter eighty plus is when you're talking about disciplined voters, and that hasn't tended to be the case last state election, at least when liberal and national voters were said, hey, we're now supporting one nation ahead of labor or independence. So I think that will be the interesting part as well, that it's not against labor, it's again it's an independent, so maybe the flow is even lower than that. So there's how to vote cards and that always helps, but it's how it actually plays out that can be a factor as well.
00:16:55
Speaker 2: I know it comes in number three on that night in a couple of weeks time, Tom, thank you. That is we will be Saturday, the ninth of May. Will albeit Sky tom Me the whole crew at six o'clock. It'll be a Pharaoh bye election. Do not miss it. Let's go out of the big stories today skyne is reporter Carolen Marcus and our national affairs editor at the Telly, and of course Sky News host James Morrow. I've run through at the top of the show there a little bit of the history of the NDS. So was there at the time, Yes, it was Julia Gillard, but she was knife not long after by Kevin Rudd. It was doomed to file in my view from the get go, as she basically gave way all the cards to the states. It was cobbled together, and everyone's been too scared to deal with the foundations, the poor foundations of this program ever since. And you know, we know about the roots, we know about the cruise holidays, we know about nights, the movies. Well, in today's paper we've got people getting five thousand dollars, mattresses, even fancy kitchen thermafixes, for goodness sake, all covered under the scheme. This is where the good wiels evaporated, James. And I'll tell you what if the government can't fix it this time, I don't think people are going to support this scheme going further.
00:18:09
Speaker 8: No, I think you're right, Peter. I mean I hate the term social license. I mean, where do you go to get your social license renewed? But I really do think that it applies in the case of the NDIS because people know that this was a thing, and people aren't dummy. It's the political class here tries to treat people like they've got the memory of a goldfish. People remember what the NDIS was supposed to be for it was supposed to be for those people who were really in trouble, who had profound disability, things of that nature, and they see the way it has expanded and blown out, and they see the rewards, and you know, I think Labor has cotton on the fact that if they keep going, people are going to say, look, we need to blow the whole thing up and start again, which they don't want to do. But I think there's a problem with the approach that they've laid out here. I mean, yes, it's very good to reevaluate everybody, all the individuals, but I think that that also if they're focusing on that, they're not focusing enough on where the real fraud is taking place, and that's at the provider level.
00:19:09
Speaker 2: Look eighty months away. None of this is going to happen for eighty months, So they'll buy themselves clean air and the other side of an election, Caroline, and I don't think that there will be real systemic changes. They were to ran the legislation through the Parliament in Budget week, while the Coalition is grappling with all the detail announced on Tuesday night. That doesn't say to me that they're being feddikom either. What did you make of what Labor announced today.
00:19:34
Speaker 9: Look in theory, I think they're all good measures. You know, cutting back on the number of people who are on the scheme. One hundred and sixty thousand people are going to be cut. Labor says they're going to pair back the average packages that they're offering people by about five thousand dollars of package. Great, They're going to be reassessing everyone who's currently on the scheme according to new criteria eligibility criteria tick you know, but none of this is going to be a laugh to address the massive elephant in the room, which is that we simply cannot afford a scheme like this and it is.
00:20:12
Speaker 2: Being roarted to the hills.
00:20:16
Speaker 9: I'm not convinced that any of this will be enough to make it sustainable long term. Even if they cut the growth to two percent, it's going to grow again and people are going to just find new ways to water.
00:20:28
Speaker 2: I mean, you mentioned we.
00:20:28
Speaker 9: Have a laugh about some of the things people try and claim on their NDIS packages, like five thousand dollar mattresses. One woman who had depression and anxiety, I mean, why is she on NDIS in the first place. It's supposed to be for the most disabled among us. She was trying to claim a washer and a dryer and standard household items.
00:20:49
Speaker 2: Even when these items.
00:20:51
Speaker 9: Are being knocked back, the scheme is paying millions of dollars seventy five million dollars last year alone, Peter in five appeals by patients who are then dissatisfied that they've been rejected, so they're taking it to a tribunal, and Anyis has to then spend millions of dollars to fight it with lawyers. It is not sustainable in any form.
00:21:17
Speaker 2: I think. I think James is right.
00:21:20
Speaker 9: You might have they might have to blow it all up, and I think there is increasingly less goodwill for it, less social license.
00:21:28
Speaker 2: Oh there's no doubt about that, No doubt about that, James, your paper and the other news court papers around the country. They've had a really big win today because in and around this NDIS announcement, labor sort of squeezed in hope we wouldn't notice, of course, squeezed in quite a backflip on age care, the services that are provided to people in their home. We had some changes announced by the government last year which meant a whole lot of people elderly Australians were down to being able to shower with support what maybe once a week. They are really struggling in terms of those home care packages. They've had to back down today. And this is a good thing.
00:22:09
Speaker 8: This is a very good thing. And I mean this should go so far beyond politics here to give people an idea and you touched on it there, but people really literally having to choose between hygiene and food, all right, and these are our oldest Australians, you know, people who have paid into the system their whole life, people who have been contributing, people who deserve dignity in old age, and they were being forced to choose between these two things. And the amounts that were being charged. You know, we're talking about you know, one hundred dollars for a shower, things like that. Unbelievable, and you know, similar amounts of money for very simple meals, you know, certain meals that you wouldn't get from takeaway for one third of the price. Yes, the government has backed down. It is I think it's a win obviously for the Telegraph and for the papers here, but it's a win for Australians. It's a win for older Australians. And thank god that the government down on that.
00:23:02
Speaker 2: They don't want thermer mixes and five thousand dollars mattresses. They just want the absolute basics. And you're right to make the point. They have paid their taxes all their lives. They're asking for modest supporting. If they're not helped in their home, of course, they end up in a nursing home, which costs a text by a hell of a lot more. Hey Carol, I've got to get your take on doctor Beth Upton. I tell people about her last night, her him transgender woman. So a biological male is now registered or licensed in Australia as a female doctor to practice in hospitals in New South Wales.
00:23:37
Speaker 9: It's scary, isn't it, Peter an extraordinary that someone who denies the reality of biological sex, this doctor And I'm glad we can say doctor because I don't have to mess around with someone's preferred.
00:23:50
Speaker 2: Pronouns doctor Upton.
00:23:53
Speaker 9: It says that she he she thinks biological sex is just a dog with and this is a person who is making medical decisions. You've got to question a medical practitioner who denies science, basic science. But not only that, this doctor was at the center of this UK tribunal where a nurse who refused to share female staff change rooms with this doctor had brought this case to the tribunal and under evidence, doctor Upton told the tribunal that if someone had turned up to the hospital requesting a female doctor, that doctor Upton had every intention of still treating that patient. Now this means that at the two news Upwells hospitals that doctor Upton is now allowed to work at, if you're a woman and you turn up needing emergency care and you request a female doctor for whatever reason, religious, cultural, it's a sensitive medical issue that you want a female treating you, you could end up with a biological male doctor.
00:25:00
Speaker 2: I think that is a travesty. You are not wrong. I think they are anyone fronting after a sexual assault and they want a female if they're a female that's been obviously abused. Not good enough for all the talk that labor has about DV and women and women's rights. Not good enough. Thank you to you both all right after the break the second part of my sit down with Peter Costello. He says we're squandering our good fortune by not using fossil fuels to power our economy, and he doesn't mince his words when it comes to his assessment of the upcoming budget or the man who's pulling it together. Jim Chalmers talk about coming up Kel Richards with two words. Let me tell you that politicians they get wrong all the time, but they should know better. But first, the second part of our exclusive sit down with Australia's longest serving treasurer. It was twenty years ago on April twenty one, two thousand and six. Costello had led Australia to historic debt free status. But tonight he reflects on the economic decline of our nation since and his thoughts in Australia's energy fragility exposed by the fuel crisis, with a budget looming against a climate of rising inflation and low productivity. I started by asking mister Costello what he would do in Jim Chalmer's shoes.
00:26:25
Speaker 1: Well, the first point I make is I wouldn't be starting from here right. I'd have got things in a much stronger position.
00:26:35
Speaker 3: But we are starting from here now because of previous ways. Obviously we've got a rain in expenditure.
00:26:46
Speaker 1: Expenditure was driving the inflation pre Iran, As I said, pre run. We're at three point eight percent right now. From Iran. You'll get increases in oil prices and petrol prices.
00:26:59
Speaker 3: And transportation that will feed into inflation.
00:27:01
Speaker 1: But pre run, we're in a bad position, and that was being driven by wanton wanton public expenditure. So they've got to do something about that, obviously. But obviously they've got to look at why we're performing so poorly in productivity. One of the reasons is our taxes are too high, right, so I wouldn't be increasing taxes in this budget.
00:27:26
Speaker 3: They will, of course I wouldn't. It's going to do nothing for productivity, by the way.
00:27:32
Speaker 1: And the other thing, it's as clear as the nose on your face. Energy costs such a big part of the story on productivity.
00:27:42
Speaker 3: Right now.
00:27:44
Speaker 1: We're in a situation now where where oil prices are going up, petrol prices are going with, diesel prices are going up, fertilizer prices are going up, right, and it cries out to me that we should have our own oil development in this country.
00:28:00
Speaker 3: We should have gas. We've got a policy of getting rid of all of these things.
00:28:05
Speaker 1: By the way, when I was in gavernment back in two thousand, we were self sufficient in oil.
00:28:10
Speaker 3: So back in two thousand.
00:28:13
Speaker 1: Now some of those reserves have run down best straight for example. But we haven't encouraged new exploration in new development. In fact, the whole policy has been to stop new exploration and new development.
00:28:27
Speaker 3: He walked down the city street.
00:28:29
Speaker 1: Here, there's a big sign on the city street no new oil or gas, Peter. We live on a continent, right, We've got a whole continent. And yet we're up in Singapore, which is a tiny little island, and we're all.
00:28:47
Speaker 2: We're blessed with what's in the ground.
00:28:49
Speaker 1: Here looking for oil from Singapore, it's just a little city state. We've got a whole continent, by the way, right, we got reserves all over this continent. Gas were the biggest, one of the biggest gas producers in the world. There is more oil in Australia. Why aren't we developing it? Well, we've got a policy no new fossil fuels. This is our policy. This is it's not an accident that we're no longer producing enough for our own needs.
00:29:18
Speaker 3: This is a policy.
00:29:21
Speaker 1: This is a government policy that says we don't want new oil, we don't want to use gas. This is a policy we're in this predicament because we have chosen it. The rest of the world will be looking at us. I think up in Singapore they'd be saying, this is weird. These people have got a whole country, they've got all the resources. They're up here begging us for oil and gas. Why would this happen?
00:29:44
Speaker 2: This requires tough decisions at a grown up government. Let's talk about other things in the budget. The ndis around eight hundred thousand people, and it's a fifty billion dollar program Medicare services to twenty seven million of US the whole country. And it's a thirty five billion dollar program that's not sustainable.
00:30:07
Speaker 3: Now, of course it's not.
00:30:08
Speaker 1: The ndis poorly, poorly designed from the outset.
00:30:15
Speaker 3: If you have what we call a.
00:30:17
Speaker 1: Demand driven program, that is, anybody who wants to is entitled to come in if they meet the qualification and get the service, of course it will explode. There's no financial limit on it, and the criteria for getting the service is loose, and it can be expanded, and it has been expanded. This shouldn't surprise anybody. And it's expanded to fifty billion dollars. You know, I challenge you to go back and see what the government said it would be when it first came in.
00:30:54
Speaker 2: I think it was about twelve right topping out at twelve right.
00:30:59
Speaker 1: And of course the other thing was obvious. And you know I've been through this a million times before. This is the thing about being around these Commonwealth programs. Once the Commonwealth came in, where the rivers have all of the states vacated the field, why wouldn't they vacate the field because they were providing services in the disability area. But the common was going to come in and say this demand driven expenditure, they're going to get out of these services. Of course the game they just put the cost over onto the commonwth that's exactly what they did. So you know, we're at fifty billion dollars and they say, oh well we might try and we might try and restrict their growth to say eight percent peradum or something. You know, this this is the this is the latest.
00:31:41
Speaker 3: You think that's a success.
00:31:43
Speaker 1: A fifty billion crowing at eight percent paradum, You think that's a success.
00:31:47
Speaker 3: Of course it's not success.
00:31:49
Speaker 1: But that's a program which is now completely and utterly out of control.
00:31:52
Speaker 3: Obvious, obvious.
00:31:54
Speaker 2: Can I ask you about Labour's changes to institutions and the two I'm thinking of particularly here is the Reserve Bank, the changes to the border of the Reserve Bank and some other governance changes. Experts have said, well, that's really at risk of politicizing the Reserve Bank, and then the Future Fund altering the remit of the Future Fund and real concern and you were its chairman after you establish it when you left politics. The real concern that people have that will be raided to pay for today's expenditure.
00:32:27
Speaker 1: Right, well, let me come into the Future Fund first, the future After we paid off debt, the government is still spending less than it raises. So what do we do with the money? And I had this idea. We set up a Future Fund, right to help austraight his future. That's why it's called Future Fund, very popular name, by the way, futureman. And so the money, it's like you put money in the bankment, it puts its money in the future. And I was the last Treasurer to put any money in the Future Fund. Have put any money in the Future Fund since I stacked No no, no, no no. So it's basically been living off the money I put in near on twenty years ago, and it's grown that very successfully to two hundred and sixty billion dollars.
00:33:26
Speaker 3: But I don't know.
00:33:27
Speaker 1: Nobody else has been putting money into the Future Fund. No money to put.
00:33:31
Speaker 2: In or fair point, fair point right.
00:33:36
Speaker 1: So the Future Fund should, in my views, is the way I always run.
00:33:41
Speaker 3: It's the way I said it up.
00:33:43
Speaker 1: Future It should look out for investments and get the best return. In my view, if the Future Fund can find a good investment, let's say, in developing our oil reserves, why not. If it can find a good investment in developing our gas receives, why not? Are you getting a good return? What's wrong with doing all this? We're a coal export. If the Future Fund invests in coal companies, why not you know?
00:34:18
Speaker 3: In other words, you know, just look for the return. Now, what the government has.
00:34:23
Speaker 1: Said is they're against new oil, don't really like gas, hate coal, right, So they've changed its mandate to say, oh, it's got to have a preference for renewables. Now this is very dangerous because once the government says go and put your money and this that's in, this is most likely to be lost, or a substandard investment or something else. So they've tried to harness that money, money which labor of course never put into the Future Fund, you know, money which of course wouldn't have even been put into the future Fund if they'd have had their way, because they would have they wanted to run deficits sort of skew it to this political agenda, right, very dangerous that kind of thing. And why should it be skewed if I just don't understand this point? You know, if Australia has good reserves of oil and good reserves of gas, why.
00:35:29
Speaker 3: Shouldn't we develop it?
00:35:30
Speaker 1: The idea that it's terrible for us to develop them, but it's okay for Iran and Saudi Arabia and the UAE to develop them, will buy it from them.
00:35:41
Speaker 3: Right.
00:35:42
Speaker 2: Does the level of state debt concern you? We're in Victoria right now. Its debt is more than Queensland, New South Wales, Tasmania combine, and I suspect after the budget, after the election in November, it'll be worse.
00:35:56
Speaker 1: It does consume me. So the comm Walt's got about a trillion dollars out in gross debt and the states haven't got quite a trillion, but well, getting up there at three quarters of a trillion dollars at the state level as well. Now what that means is the commonwth government's got to pay interest bill and the state governments have got to pay their interest bill. A lot of money going out and interest on inherited debty. At the moment, it's worse at the state level because the states don't really have much of a tax base to service their debts. What have they got, Well, they've got the gst okay, and then they have land taxes, stamp duties on properties.
00:36:46
Speaker 3: And this is why again these escalating.
00:36:47
Speaker 2: Property and the risk with rating agencies's got to be real.
00:36:52
Speaker 1: Well, you see, I actually think the rating agencies have been very easy on some.
00:36:57
Speaker 3: Of these states.
00:36:58
Speaker 2: You think it's worse.
00:36:59
Speaker 1: I think they've been very easy. And the reason the states haven't been downgraded.
00:37:06
Speaker 3: More than they have.
00:37:09
Speaker 1: Is that they assume that somehow the Commonwealth government's going to come.
00:37:13
Speaker 3: In and rescue these states.
00:37:15
Speaker 1: If the ratings agency looked at the state of Victoria as a standalone operation and said it can't rely on.
00:37:22
Speaker 3: A Commonwealth guarantee.
00:37:24
Speaker 1: I think it's rating would be significantly lower than it currently is. But they think to themselves, oh, Commonwealth government wouldn't let Victoria go with it. Too big to fail, too big to fail, So okay, we'll give it a bit of a pass. I actually think, you know, this could be.
00:37:45
Speaker 3: A wake up call for Victoria.
00:37:47
Speaker 1: If the ratings Agency said, well, look a standlone operation you're not that good, will downgrade you. I mean, it could be a wake up call. Something needs to wake up the state of Victoria. I mean, the waste and the debt and the projects has just been abysmal.
00:38:06
Speaker 2: Can the Liberal Party win in Victoria in November?
00:38:08
Speaker 1: I think it can. It's not a laydown moziir. I think it can. It's got to prosecute the case against the state government and it's got to show competence. I think most people agree this is the Victorian The Andrews Allen government is just hopeless. I don't think you find anybody that would say they've done a good job. For example, the critical question in the elections going to be you know, can the Liberal Party do better? And I think they've got to show competence. They've got to show some unity. I think the public wants a change of government, has just got to be satisfied that these people will do it.
00:38:53
Speaker 2: When Jim Chalmers says, you know, tax reforms on its way.
00:38:58
Speaker 1: See, I hate the use of this word tax reform when money means is tax rises.
00:39:04
Speaker 3: This is not reform. Putting up taxes is not reform.
00:39:08
Speaker 1: I regard reform as introducing a better tax system by which we can raise sufficient revenue with a lesser burden on people.
00:39:16
Speaker 3: That's tax reform.
00:39:18
Speaker 1: We'll do it in a simpler way. We'll do it in a way that will help our economy. We'll lessen the burden and we'll get sufficient. That's tax reform. Now, all he talks about is tax rises.
00:39:30
Speaker 3: This is not reform. Don't let him get away with that word.
00:39:34
Speaker 2: How do you write him as a treasurer?
00:39:36
Speaker 3: Well, what do you think? That's all? I'll say?
00:39:44
Speaker 2: Diplomatic? Has ever? Based on your feedback that I got last night and into today, you wish he was back, don't you. Yeah, we're in a bad way, We're in an absolutely bad way. But he's still got it, hasn't he. Before we leave the issue of debt and you pull out today In Australia, this might surprise you across all ages, gender, political persuasion, the whole lot of what being seventy percent of voters say they are worried about debt. Only twenty six percent say they're not worried. Four percent, well, they're in they don't no category. Now, what I found particularly telling even amongst young people. So these are aged eighteen to thirty four years of age, sixty six percent of them said that they are somewhat too very worried about debt. So ask yourself, then, why are not enough politicians talking about it? As Peter Costello and John Howard used to all right after the rain, the brilliant Ross Greenworthy pulls all that apart in the interview with Costello. The ndis so this talk of new taxes on gas that's coming out, welcome back, get your thinking caps on at home. Those two words that I say politicians get wrong all the time. They're coming out with kel They shouldn't know better, but they don't. Let's get some analysis though, and a whole lot of up with my good friend who's with me at the desk, Ross green would our business editor. We were just talking in the breakdown about the indis where it's different than almost every other program. It's open to everyone. I know, participants have to be eligibility, but it's universal and once you're in it, it's a golden ticket, right because they'll write a different program for everybody, and it's big licks of money two hundred and three hundred thousand dollars and it pays for all manner of things. We've heard washing machines, therm and mixes, trips to the theater.
00:41:31
Speaker 6: So where is that right? Where is that good use?
00:41:34
Speaker 4: Yes?
00:41:34
Speaker 6: So what was of the taxpayers?
00:41:35
Speaker 2: What have they missed today? What haven't they done that they should have done in terms of containing costs?
00:41:40
Speaker 10: Well, okay, in terms of containing costs, surely the costs should be contained to the growth in your economy and that group of people going in and being eligible to the NDIS.
00:41:52
Speaker 2: So shrink the pool based on how we're going in the economy.
00:41:54
Speaker 10: Of course, that's everything should be judged. That's what pet Gestelle was talking about. Cut your cloth according to what's in front of you. Now, if you sit there and say that they were thinking about the NDI is growing at eight percent, but you've got an economy right now that is growing possibly at less than two percent. How can you long term afford that without either a taxing people more or having a reduced standard living somewhere down the trail.
00:42:21
Speaker 2: So if you've got if you're a millionaire and you go to the doctor, and let's say you go and see a surgeon, Medicare will only pay you this much. Doesn't matter what your surgeon charges you. That's the amount on your Medicare slip. Doesn't matter who you are, it doesn't matter what, as I said, your surgeon charges. But with Medicare, it's complete, with the nyas, it's all over the shop. It's open ended. They said today they're going to run all the participants back over the rule of you know, back through the system, run the ruler over them.
00:42:44
Speaker 6: But how much is that going to cost for status?
00:42:46
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, and a talent is it going to take?
00:42:49
Speaker 10: And how did NDIS get bigger than Medicare in such a short space?
00:42:52
Speaker 2: The providers this scrutiny, that's right.
00:42:56
Speaker 6: No, that's right. So that's where they.
00:42:58
Speaker 2: Should be policing them provided.
00:43:00
Speaker 10: Because hasn't been a medi an NDIS provider become almost the biggest racket in Australia. If you're not on that then you're missing out. There are people who have literally made millions upon millions of do.
00:43:12
Speaker 2: I need to look at the electric providers. I need to look at the electorates where the NDIS providers are. And if there's lots of providers in labor electorates, they're not really going to tackle the ruts.
00:43:24
Speaker 6: Okay.
00:43:24
Speaker 10: And then then the second part of that, you sit there and say, the providers who have created businesses out of this booming businesses and to be fair to the government, they're now going to try and look at the style of provision and whether there is a racket going on, whether there is really roots happening, and if there are, of course there should be people put before the courts and made examples of so that really you try and stamp I.
00:43:48
Speaker 2: See the stories, I don't see the conviction.
00:43:50
Speaker 10: No, not I because quite clearly, as you say, politics will actually play out on.
00:43:54
Speaker 6: This communities in need.
00:43:56
Speaker 10: But the fact of the matter is for most Australians it feels like a rut, especially if this project has now got bigger than Medicare in such a short space of time.
00:44:06
Speaker 2: Okay, So based on what you heard today, can we even order can we even afford all?
00:44:10
Speaker 10: The answer is no, because the fact is we've got priorities as a nation, not just to indius, which is where you and I differ, because I believe it should be means tested. I think it should be means tested. I think there should be tougher means testing on childcare.
00:44:25
Speaker 2: Don't means test menycare. We don't meant we don't think we should pat the amount to.
00:44:30
Speaker 6: Can I say, but I don't think that.
00:44:32
Speaker 10: Yes, I agree with we don't means test medicare, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't means test other things, including the ndias. There are people who can afford to care for this disabled family members who should pay.
00:44:47
Speaker 2: Let's let's stop paying childcare to people earning half a million.
00:44:49
Speaker 6: No, I can't agree with that. That's right.
00:44:51
Speaker 2: Talked to me about gas because you interviewed someone very interestingly the other day, and I've got the grab talk us into it.
00:44:59
Speaker 6: So I just want to explain this.
00:45:00
Speaker 10: So at the show, we have taxation or not. That's the So this is the big issue right now. So as Peedextello, we've just heard said, when you hear the Treasurer say tax reform, what he's actually talking about is tax increases. Now, even this suggestion that we should tax the big gas companies and as people have indicated, and this is.
00:45:18
Speaker 2: True, we'll tax them more because they do pay tax now.
00:45:21
Speaker 6: They pay so much tax.
00:45:23
Speaker 10: And so look, my example is let's say, for example, you've got a laptop computer. You basically get the chance to write that computer off if it's for work.
00:45:32
Speaker 6: Until you pay your tax. You don't pay tax until you've written that computer off.
00:45:35
Speaker 10: If you've just spent twenty five billion dollars building a giant gas infrastructure project for Australia, you don't pay tax until it's been written not written down. Now, So get to Mike Worth, who is the global chair and chief executive of one of the world's largest.
00:45:51
Speaker 6: Energy companies, Chevron.
00:45:53
Speaker 10: Chevron built the biggest private infrastructure project in Australia, the Gorgan Gas Project, worth by the time it was finished fifty four billion dollars. Now, the fact of the matter is that when I spoke with Mike Worth last year late last year, he said, because of the delays in the approvals, because of the uncertainty of the tax situation in Australia and the fact that governments will come and grab more tax out of gas companies, he will not choose to invest another single dollar in a gas project in Australia.
00:46:27
Speaker 6: Have listen to this.
00:46:29
Speaker 11: It's a globally competitive marketplace that we face, others in our industry face, and our capital goes to the areas where we have predictability, where we have certainty, and these investments last for decades and so stability of policy and predictability and continuity of policy are fundamental to the decision process.
00:46:50
Speaker 2: If you listen to the social media influencers that are out there in that fronting a cent and inquiry this week, the inferences that don't pay any tax in Australia.
00:46:58
Speaker 10: Well, the reason why because they go to the Tax Office which puts out a list of who pays tax in Australia. Well, the fact is, if you've just bet fifty four billion dollars, you don't pay any tax until you've written off the fifty four billion dollars on the earnings that you've got. Now, to be fair to government, this government, previous governments, they crack down on the roots to allow businesses, including some of the big tech companies, basically taking their money from Australia and then putting the low tax jurisdictions. They made certain they were taxed here and that's really important. That it's important that when these companies suddenly get to the end of that depreciation phase, that they do pay their taxes. And that's what the petroleum resource rent tax is all about. So if we just sit tidy on these gas projects, we're going to get multi billions dollars of taxpayers money in once they've written them off.
00:47:48
Speaker 6: The real problem.
00:47:49
Speaker 10: I've got is there's no future projects coming because of the settings and the suggestions that we might tax the more. So they're saying, all right, we'll go to Mexico, we'll get Africa for the future gas developments.
00:48:02
Speaker 6: We won't go to Australia.
00:48:04
Speaker 2: I want to run a bit of a campaign you heard from Costello there. The changes to the Future Fund mean the Future Fund can only invest in windmills and solar farms, not on things we need like refineries. And it's a big ticket item. The government's not going to do it. If the Future Fund could, it'll be fantastic with this country. So there's an idea for you.
00:48:21
Speaker 6: Thanks so much better.
00:48:22
Speaker 2: All right, quick break, Kel, after the break, welcome back. Let's bring him in, Kel Richards. I want to start with one and I kid my viewers not here, kell I've caught our politicians of all stripes on this one before. They really don't understand the difference between debt and deficit.
00:48:44
Speaker 12: Okay, that means that which is owed. The word came into English and the thirteen hundreds, can I just mention as a very quicker side it used to be spelt de doublet, which is how we still say the word. And then in the sixteen hundred someone worked out there was a lack word in the background debatah, so a silent silent B was inserted to show that it came from Latin housily. But debt means that which is owed. Deficit means falling short, where income fall short of expenditure.
00:49:14
Speaker 6: Come into English pardon.
00:49:15
Speaker 12: Me from French in seventeen eighty four, it's very much like deficiency now. In government spending, the deficit is the annual falling short of government expenditure against government's income against expenditure, whereas the debt is all the borrowings over all the previous years added up. That's the government debt, that's the national debt. Whereas the deficit is each year the level that government income falls short of government expenditure and therefore there are borrowing. So the borrowings in one year are the deficit, and over all the previous years added together still owe. Because money we owe, that's the debt. Now does that make it any helpful at all?
00:49:58
Speaker 2: I just want to underscore for people at home to you know, governments will crow about being in surplus, that they crow that they're not running a deficit budget. But that just means in that particular year we as a country brought in more revenue than they spent. It doesn't mean that the underlying debt has been dealt with. You can be drowning and debt as we are in Australia a trillion dollars, but you can be running just a little bit behind and spending as opposed to what you're bringing in. Gott to leave it there. I'm sorry, I've been talking all night. We'll give you more time next week. Thank you. Kel all right, that's it for me to see tomorrow night
Speaker 1: Greenlin Live on Sky News Australia.
00:00:06
Speaker 2: I am a little younger, but I just squeaked in some primary school years in the seventies. Good on you, Chris for telling the truth. Good evening, Welcome to the program. Here's what's coming up tonight on Kredlin. Labour's being pitched to Rain in the NDS. It's a runaway scheme that Labor itself set up to fail under Julia Gillard. Now I was in Camber at the time. I'll explain the history in a moment, but I think they're playing politics still today, trying to run through changes in budget week. I'll pull that Apart to all those who wrote off one Nation after Monday Nights slight drop in News poll, well what do you say to nights to the Sky News poll that's got one Nation drawing level with Labor on primary vote. Now this is huge. That analys us with Tom Connell coming out, plus more on the backlash against UK born to doctor Beth Upton, a biological male now registered as a female doctor. In News Wales and Part two tonight, I might sit down with Peter Costello. We cover a lot of ground the upcoming budget energy his Frank assessment on the performance of Jim Chalmers and warning bells over state debt, particularly in Victoria.
00:01:16
Speaker 1: I actually think the rating agencies have been very easy on.
00:01:19
Speaker 3: Some of these states.
00:01:21
Speaker 2: You think it's worse.
00:01:22
Speaker 1: They assume that somehow the Commonwealth government's going to come in and rescue these states.
00:01:29
Speaker 2: Costello does not miss. But first, finally, finally, the Albanzer government is inching towards reforming the NDIS. But it's more about striking a pose, I'm sorry to say, than making a difference with the hard decisions subject to further work and the agreement of the states. Because under the scheme as designed by the then very desperate PM Julia Gillard not long before she was rolled by Kevin Rudd, the states wheel the power, but it's the Commonwealth that writes the checks.
00:01:58
Speaker 4: Before we get.
00:01:58
Speaker 2: Into some of the detail on the announcements today, here's the basic problem. Now, for years, disability advocates had demanded a national scheme Medicare. They wouldn't medicare for people with disabilities because the states had been inconsistent and to be honest, inadequate about the provision of disability services. People with the same disabilities got different services. Depending on where they lived and often whether they could get into a relatively small number of institutionalized providers. And that's a really important point when we talk about the NDS. It only came into being because the states were not looking after people as they should. They were cutting corners and they were cutting budgets. Now at the time, back in twenty thirteen, there was so much good will. As pitched by the advocates. The NDIS we were told would be modeled on the state accident compensation schemes, where premiums covered treatment designed to keep people back to almost full health. And that's how you get the term insurance in the title, even though there was nothing insurance like the NDIS at the time. Advocates argue that the NDIS would more or less pay for itself by turning large numbers of people who would previously have been left on the scrap heap with life changing disabilities into workers rather than pensioners. The idea was that the government would pay premiums on behalf of all Australians and that people with very serious disabilities would be funded to receive the services that they needed from high quality professional providers. But it was never going to work like this, as the Opposition argued at the time. They supported the scheme, sure, but they felt the whole establishment of it, pulling it together, creating it. They argued, it was rushed, indeed panicked.
00:04:00
Speaker 5: The National Disability Insurance Scheme itself is.
00:04:05
Speaker 4: A work in progress.
00:04:06
Speaker 6: It is a building site. Much is yet to be done.
00:04:11
Speaker 4: Much of the design work, indeed, is.
00:04:14
Speaker 3: Yet to be completed. We still don't know.
00:04:18
Speaker 5: Who will be eligible for the NDIS. We don't know what is covered by the NDIS. We don't know the extent of coverage by the NDIS. We don't know the precise role of the states in the operations of the NDIS, if any. Indeed, the very nature of the scheme itself is yet to be determined.
00:04:48
Speaker 2: It was all done deliberately by Guillit in an election year and without very strong management. The numbers on the scheme is Abbitt warned at the time it was Opposition leader or they were inevitably going to soar and along with it budget costs and what they received from the scheme was inevitably going to expand beyond what was strictly necessary. Because when we saw this with pink Bats under Labor too routers and scammers can't help being attracted to big pots of government money. Now, Originally the NDIAS was meant to cost some thirteen billion a year, half from the Commonwealth, half from the States, but desperate to sign on the States, Gillard agreed that any uplifting costs would be paid for by Canberra, which immediately introduced the incentive of states to cost shift to the Commonwealth. So where are we now, Well, currently there's almost eight hundred thousand people on the INDIS, so that's double those original expectations costs, or they're running at almost fifty billion dollars that is four times the original budget. There are literally tens of thousands of INDIS providers now ninety center of them they are not even registered. And there's way too many scammers and crooks. Over ten percent of all boys in Australia age five to eight are on the NDIS for autism or developmental delays, and taxpayer fund at NDIS services will they include things like getting a lawn mode, a trip to the pictures, even a cruise ship holiday. Now it's a mess. And because Julia Gillard, as I said, was desperate for a deal to give a failing government some sort of legacy agreeing to the Commonwealth covering almost all the funding increases. As I said, the states now provide less than thirty percent of total funding to the NDIS and many this is always going to happen. They have shunted away the services that they were supposed to maintain onto the commonwealth, but cleaning it ups near impossible because of the governance of the scheme. It is a nightmare. It's run by the mob called NDIA, the National Disability Insurance Agency, and they're mostly disability advocates appointed by state and federal government. There's no proper ministerial accountability, there's no proper apartment, and no one fronts estimates in the Senate in the usual way, so very little real financial security. In other words, there's no one really in charge, no one really to take responsibility. And ultimately, you, as taxpayers, will you pick up the tab as services that will never be enough, at least for the advocates and the recipients. At the heart of today's announcement is a plan to reassess every participant against new criteria for what counts as functional capacity. The aim by Labor is to get those numbers down to about six hundred thousand. But as always with this mob, the devil's in the detail, and that detail is yet to be worked out. In any event, these new arrangements won't be in place until January twenty twenty eight. That's eighteen months away, conveniently after the next election. Now what worried me most about today it is how genuine the government really is here, how genuine they are to reform the NDIS. Because I was dismayed to hear that they want to ram all of these proposed changes through the Parliament in budget week. Rushing a complex policy like the NDIS is what got labor into this mess in the first place, and doing it again. No, and I hope I am wrong here, but this just says to me this is smoke and mirrors accounting by Labor and fake We're getting tough budget spin.
00:08:49
Speaker 6: All right.
00:08:50
Speaker 2: The Pharao by election shaping up as a real chest not just for the coalition partners, not the lives of Naths only, but also for One Nation and the allbreed teal Michelle Milf And just to highlight how much money Millthorpe's strowing around, have a look at the table on the screen This is the last ninety days of the advertising spend for all four candidates on meta. So this is the ads they're running across Facebook and all the other meta platforms. Now it is current as of Friday. And just look at how much the Teal is outstripping her opponents with her media buy. The Teals spending are whopping sixty six point six thousand dollars, the Libs four thousand, but that's twenty seven hundred and one Nation's David Farley, Well, he's spending least just over two thousand dollars advertising on Facebook and elsewhere. Millthorpe, as you know, is bankrolled by Climbate two hundred. They're pushing hard to raise her a million dollars for the seat. And she's also got an army of activists flying in from Sydney to help out on the ground. Now will it work? We'll see the preference flows here will be crucial. I've got Tom Connell coming up to take us through the deals that have been done. And to all those commentators, is said on Monday, one Nation was done out of that news poll. Think again, hold your horses, I said at the time. I want to see the trend before I'm going to call it. Well, there's a new poll today, Sky News Pulse poll and it's got One Nation now level with Labor on primary vote. That's why when you want to talk about politics, real experience matters. All right, let's get into all the detail here. There's some good stuff coming. Sky's chief election analyst, Tom Connor. We're going to pull apart the Sky Pulse poll if we can. First, Tom, you've heard me just then on the One Nation surge. Though people out there Monday saying it's all over, you know, they're gone News poll that showed there was a draw in the One Nation primary. But you've got a poll now that says they're level peaking with the Albanizer government. What's going on?
00:11:09
Speaker 7: Yeah, well, there are always different polls, Peter, but our support for One Nation has tracked along fairly consistently, perhaps bounced around a little bit less than most. These are the latest figures here. So one Nation and Labor for the first time a level. Remember the coalition when they got level with One Nation, we thought, well this last look at this twenty seven each.
00:11:27
Speaker 4: What's interesting about.
00:11:27
Speaker 7: This is label was thirty four and a half at the last election, so seven and a half percent, or have fifth of their support since that election is gone one nation up too, which is a pretty significant movement in one poll. The Conservative coalition is it's stagnant. Yes, it's steady, but it's really stagnant and they're not getting the pick up when Labour lose vote, which would be crucial to them. If you add the three to the coalition instead of going to two to one nation, suddenly they're a lot closer together.
00:11:53
Speaker 4: So that's the concern. Out of this poll.
00:11:55
Speaker 7: The Greens the highest we've had in sky News poles as well, two party preferred.
00:12:00
Speaker 4: Well, we've got our two options.
00:12:01
Speaker 7: Let's go to the one that's closest first of all, and that's Labor versus one Nation. As you see here fifty two to forty eight. So that's a big closing from last time. It was fifty five forty five last time and we had this. And the other one is Labor versus the Coalition. Again, this has closed since last time and since that election. It was fifty five to forty five at the electional very close to that, and you can see it's fifty three forty seven.
00:12:24
Speaker 4: Interesting as well when you break down.
00:12:26
Speaker 7: Of course, the support when it comes to one nation or Pauline Hanson specifically as the leader compared to Anthony Albanezi. So she is in terms of the preferred leader here as you can see, she's actually the preferred leader for fifty to sixty four year olds, for those who label themselves working class voters.
00:12:46
Speaker 4: Just to be important on how we sort of mentioned that.
00:12:48
Speaker 7: And whilst outa Metro has labor as the lead there, they're not all the.
00:12:52
Speaker 4: Same those seats.
00:12:52
Speaker 7: That points to a close enough contest where label would be concerned about losing those out of suburban seats they hung on to them for example, and that's out Australian state election, Peter.
00:13:01
Speaker 4: But with a very popular leader.
00:13:02
Speaker 7: So the overall leader should mention for Anthony Elbanezi is fifty to thirty nine versus paul and Hanson with eleven undecided. But fascinating some of those demographics that say Pauline Hanson who's in the Senate. Of course we've got to mention that, but they say she'd be a better Prime minister.
00:13:18
Speaker 2: Just leave that tile up if you could, tom that preferred PM tyle, because I want to make the point to people at home that is where the Abbot Army or the Howard battler traditionally came from. So that is a very happy hunting ground for Liberals who want to win elections, and its diabolical for them in opposition if they cannot get that sort of vote block in Why is Labour's primary vote falling?
00:13:43
Speaker 7: If you look at what happened in the last electoral cycle, Labour's primary vote was relatively low in twenty two and that was pretty similar in twenty twenty five. What do they take to the election campaign? Not a lot of major change, Peter. So if it's as steady as she goes government, but it's not going all that steadily. If you look at the economy, if you look at inflation, it was under control and then it wasn't you know, the big issues in people's lives have changed for the worst. So it makes sense that Labour's vote would go down. This would always be the opportunity you'd think as well, normally for the Coalition, and this is the concern for them that Labour's Vote's gone down seven and a half percentage points and the fact that that has not gone to the Coalition, that it has lost a vote in a net sense as well.
00:14:27
Speaker 4: So the conditions are obviously there.
00:14:29
Speaker 7: This doesn't mean labor can't recover, but it does mean they're clearly so far. The government and just the state of the economy in the nation, well, things are a lot harder than they were a bit more than a year ago.
00:14:40
Speaker 4: So that and of itself is pretty logical.
00:14:43
Speaker 7: If someone said here's where inflation is a year later, you'd say, well, gee, labor must be struggling. What wouldn't be as easy to predict back then is the surge of one nation.
00:14:53
Speaker 2: Labor. Of course, to try and blame everything in terms of the budget wise, inflation and fuel on Donald Trump, and the voters in those poles are not coming with them on that. We've got a resolve pole that sees one nation in Victoria is in trench. That'll be a problem for the Libs at the state election in November. But before that, of course, we've got this Faro by election. The preference deals here are critical Tom the Libs in the Nats, they are preferencing one nation ahead of the Teal. She calls herself an independent, Michelle that Millthorpe. We all know where she comes from. She's a teal. How material will this preference flow be on Saturday Night in a couple of weeks.
00:15:34
Speaker 7: Well, it's going to be significant because one nation will not get any help of course from the Greens, and their vote might be boosted up because Labour's not running. The Greens traditionally run ninety ten against one nation if it's anyone they can stand, so that's how you'd expect it to run for Michelle Milthorpe. So there's a disadvantage there and one nation and the rest of the candidates might go okay, maybe it splits the rest of the vote. So if they're pretty level with Michelle Millthorpe, one nation has to get help in the Liberals and Nationals.
00:16:03
Speaker 4: So that's crucial for them.
00:16:05
Speaker 7: If we look at the last time that they were given an advantage over Independence and Labor as well, in that South Australian election, it wasn't something Liberal Party voters just obeyed.
00:16:16
Speaker 4: Now they went at about two thirds one third.
00:16:19
Speaker 7: That still helps, but that's not as solid as when you get voters that follow those out of vote cards in a really disciplined manner of sort of. You know, I think you'd agree, probably Peter eighty plus is when you're talking about disciplined voters, and that hasn't tended to be the case last state election, at least when liberal and national voters were said, hey, we're now supporting one nation ahead of labor or independence. So I think that will be the interesting part as well, that it's not against labor, it's again it's an independent, so maybe the flow is even lower than that. So there's how to vote cards and that always helps, but it's how it actually plays out that can be a factor as well.
00:16:55
Speaker 2: I know it comes in number three on that night in a couple of weeks time, Tom, thank you. That is we will be Saturday, the ninth of May. Will albeit Sky tom Me the whole crew at six o'clock. It'll be a Pharaoh bye election. Do not miss it. Let's go out of the big stories today skyne is reporter Carolen Marcus and our national affairs editor at the Telly, and of course Sky News host James Morrow. I've run through at the top of the show there a little bit of the history of the NDS. So was there at the time, Yes, it was Julia Gillard, but she was knife not long after by Kevin Rudd. It was doomed to file in my view from the get go, as she basically gave way all the cards to the states. It was cobbled together, and everyone's been too scared to deal with the foundations, the poor foundations of this program ever since. And you know, we know about the roots, we know about the cruise holidays, we know about nights, the movies. Well, in today's paper we've got people getting five thousand dollars, mattresses, even fancy kitchen thermafixes, for goodness sake, all covered under the scheme. This is where the good wiels evaporated, James. And I'll tell you what if the government can't fix it this time, I don't think people are going to support this scheme going further.
00:18:09
Speaker 8: No, I think you're right, Peter. I mean I hate the term social license. I mean, where do you go to get your social license renewed? But I really do think that it applies in the case of the NDIS because people know that this was a thing, and people aren't dummy. It's the political class here tries to treat people like they've got the memory of a goldfish. People remember what the NDIS was supposed to be for it was supposed to be for those people who were really in trouble, who had profound disability, things of that nature, and they see the way it has expanded and blown out, and they see the rewards, and you know, I think Labor has cotton on the fact that if they keep going, people are going to say, look, we need to blow the whole thing up and start again, which they don't want to do. But I think there's a problem with the approach that they've laid out here. I mean, yes, it's very good to reevaluate everybody, all the individuals, but I think that that also if they're focusing on that, they're not focusing enough on where the real fraud is taking place, and that's at the provider level.
00:19:09
Speaker 2: Look eighty months away. None of this is going to happen for eighty months, So they'll buy themselves clean air and the other side of an election, Caroline, and I don't think that there will be real systemic changes. They were to ran the legislation through the Parliament in Budget week, while the Coalition is grappling with all the detail announced on Tuesday night. That doesn't say to me that they're being feddikom either. What did you make of what Labor announced today.
00:19:34
Speaker 9: Look in theory, I think they're all good measures. You know, cutting back on the number of people who are on the scheme. One hundred and sixty thousand people are going to be cut. Labor says they're going to pair back the average packages that they're offering people by about five thousand dollars of package. Great, They're going to be reassessing everyone who's currently on the scheme according to new criteria eligibility criteria tick you know, but none of this is going to be a laugh to address the massive elephant in the room, which is that we simply cannot afford a scheme like this and it is.
00:20:12
Speaker 2: Being roarted to the hills.
00:20:16
Speaker 9: I'm not convinced that any of this will be enough to make it sustainable long term. Even if they cut the growth to two percent, it's going to grow again and people are going to just find new ways to water.
00:20:28
Speaker 2: I mean, you mentioned we.
00:20:28
Speaker 9: Have a laugh about some of the things people try and claim on their NDIS packages, like five thousand dollar mattresses. One woman who had depression and anxiety, I mean, why is she on NDIS in the first place. It's supposed to be for the most disabled among us. She was trying to claim a washer and a dryer and standard household items.
00:20:49
Speaker 2: Even when these items.
00:20:51
Speaker 9: Are being knocked back, the scheme is paying millions of dollars seventy five million dollars last year alone, Peter in five appeals by patients who are then dissatisfied that they've been rejected, so they're taking it to a tribunal, and Anyis has to then spend millions of dollars to fight it with lawyers. It is not sustainable in any form.
00:21:17
Speaker 2: I think. I think James is right.
00:21:20
Speaker 9: You might have they might have to blow it all up, and I think there is increasingly less goodwill for it, less social license.
00:21:28
Speaker 2: Oh there's no doubt about that, No doubt about that, James, your paper and the other news court papers around the country. They've had a really big win today because in and around this NDIS announcement, labor sort of squeezed in hope we wouldn't notice, of course, squeezed in quite a backflip on age care, the services that are provided to people in their home. We had some changes announced by the government last year which meant a whole lot of people elderly Australians were down to being able to shower with support what maybe once a week. They are really struggling in terms of those home care packages. They've had to back down today. And this is a good thing.
00:22:09
Speaker 8: This is a very good thing. And I mean this should go so far beyond politics here to give people an idea and you touched on it there, but people really literally having to choose between hygiene and food, all right, and these are our oldest Australians, you know, people who have paid into the system their whole life, people who have been contributing, people who deserve dignity in old age, and they were being forced to choose between these two things. And the amounts that were being charged. You know, we're talking about you know, one hundred dollars for a shower, things like that. Unbelievable, and you know, similar amounts of money for very simple meals, you know, certain meals that you wouldn't get from takeaway for one third of the price. Yes, the government has backed down. It is I think it's a win obviously for the Telegraph and for the papers here, but it's a win for Australians. It's a win for older Australians. And thank god that the government down on that.
00:23:02
Speaker 2: They don't want thermer mixes and five thousand dollars mattresses. They just want the absolute basics. And you're right to make the point. They have paid their taxes all their lives. They're asking for modest supporting. If they're not helped in their home, of course, they end up in a nursing home, which costs a text by a hell of a lot more. Hey Carol, I've got to get your take on doctor Beth Upton. I tell people about her last night, her him transgender woman. So a biological male is now registered or licensed in Australia as a female doctor to practice in hospitals in New South Wales.
00:23:37
Speaker 9: It's scary, isn't it, Peter an extraordinary that someone who denies the reality of biological sex, this doctor And I'm glad we can say doctor because I don't have to mess around with someone's preferred.
00:23:50
Speaker 2: Pronouns doctor Upton.
00:23:53
Speaker 9: It says that she he she thinks biological sex is just a dog with and this is a person who is making medical decisions. You've got to question a medical practitioner who denies science, basic science. But not only that, this doctor was at the center of this UK tribunal where a nurse who refused to share female staff change rooms with this doctor had brought this case to the tribunal and under evidence, doctor Upton told the tribunal that if someone had turned up to the hospital requesting a female doctor, that doctor Upton had every intention of still treating that patient. Now this means that at the two news Upwells hospitals that doctor Upton is now allowed to work at, if you're a woman and you turn up needing emergency care and you request a female doctor for whatever reason, religious, cultural, it's a sensitive medical issue that you want a female treating you, you could end up with a biological male doctor.
00:25:00
Speaker 2: I think that is a travesty. You are not wrong. I think they are anyone fronting after a sexual assault and they want a female if they're a female that's been obviously abused. Not good enough for all the talk that labor has about DV and women and women's rights. Not good enough. Thank you to you both all right after the break the second part of my sit down with Peter Costello. He says we're squandering our good fortune by not using fossil fuels to power our economy, and he doesn't mince his words when it comes to his assessment of the upcoming budget or the man who's pulling it together. Jim Chalmers talk about coming up Kel Richards with two words. Let me tell you that politicians they get wrong all the time, but they should know better. But first, the second part of our exclusive sit down with Australia's longest serving treasurer. It was twenty years ago on April twenty one, two thousand and six. Costello had led Australia to historic debt free status. But tonight he reflects on the economic decline of our nation since and his thoughts in Australia's energy fragility exposed by the fuel crisis, with a budget looming against a climate of rising inflation and low productivity. I started by asking mister Costello what he would do in Jim Chalmer's shoes.
00:26:25
Speaker 1: Well, the first point I make is I wouldn't be starting from here right. I'd have got things in a much stronger position.
00:26:35
Speaker 3: But we are starting from here now because of previous ways. Obviously we've got a rain in expenditure.
00:26:46
Speaker 1: Expenditure was driving the inflation pre Iran, As I said, pre run. We're at three point eight percent right now. From Iran. You'll get increases in oil prices and petrol prices.
00:26:59
Speaker 3: And transportation that will feed into inflation.
00:27:01
Speaker 1: But pre run, we're in a bad position, and that was being driven by wanton wanton public expenditure. So they've got to do something about that, obviously. But obviously they've got to look at why we're performing so poorly in productivity. One of the reasons is our taxes are too high, right, so I wouldn't be increasing taxes in this budget.
00:27:26
Speaker 3: They will, of course I wouldn't. It's going to do nothing for productivity, by the way.
00:27:32
Speaker 1: And the other thing, it's as clear as the nose on your face. Energy costs such a big part of the story on productivity.
00:27:42
Speaker 3: Right now.
00:27:44
Speaker 1: We're in a situation now where where oil prices are going up, petrol prices are going with, diesel prices are going up, fertilizer prices are going up, right, and it cries out to me that we should have our own oil development in this country.
00:28:00
Speaker 3: We should have gas. We've got a policy of getting rid of all of these things.
00:28:05
Speaker 1: By the way, when I was in gavernment back in two thousand, we were self sufficient in oil.
00:28:10
Speaker 3: So back in two thousand.
00:28:13
Speaker 1: Now some of those reserves have run down best straight for example. But we haven't encouraged new exploration in new development. In fact, the whole policy has been to stop new exploration and new development.
00:28:27
Speaker 3: He walked down the city street.
00:28:29
Speaker 1: Here, there's a big sign on the city street no new oil or gas, Peter. We live on a continent, right, We've got a whole continent. And yet we're up in Singapore, which is a tiny little island, and we're all.
00:28:47
Speaker 2: We're blessed with what's in the ground.
00:28:49
Speaker 1: Here looking for oil from Singapore, it's just a little city state. We've got a whole continent, by the way, right, we got reserves all over this continent. Gas were the biggest, one of the biggest gas producers in the world. There is more oil in Australia. Why aren't we developing it? Well, we've got a policy no new fossil fuels. This is our policy. This is it's not an accident that we're no longer producing enough for our own needs.
00:29:18
Speaker 3: This is a policy.
00:29:21
Speaker 1: This is a government policy that says we don't want new oil, we don't want to use gas. This is a policy we're in this predicament because we have chosen it. The rest of the world will be looking at us. I think up in Singapore they'd be saying, this is weird. These people have got a whole country, they've got all the resources. They're up here begging us for oil and gas. Why would this happen?
00:29:44
Speaker 2: This requires tough decisions at a grown up government. Let's talk about other things in the budget. The ndis around eight hundred thousand people, and it's a fifty billion dollar program Medicare services to twenty seven million of US the whole country. And it's a thirty five billion dollar program that's not sustainable.
00:30:07
Speaker 3: Now, of course it's not.
00:30:08
Speaker 1: The ndis poorly, poorly designed from the outset.
00:30:15
Speaker 3: If you have what we call a.
00:30:17
Speaker 1: Demand driven program, that is, anybody who wants to is entitled to come in if they meet the qualification and get the service, of course it will explode. There's no financial limit on it, and the criteria for getting the service is loose, and it can be expanded, and it has been expanded. This shouldn't surprise anybody. And it's expanded to fifty billion dollars. You know, I challenge you to go back and see what the government said it would be when it first came in.
00:30:54
Speaker 2: I think it was about twelve right topping out at twelve right.
00:30:59
Speaker 1: And of course the other thing was obvious. And you know I've been through this a million times before. This is the thing about being around these Commonwealth programs. Once the Commonwealth came in, where the rivers have all of the states vacated the field, why wouldn't they vacate the field because they were providing services in the disability area. But the common was going to come in and say this demand driven expenditure, they're going to get out of these services. Of course the game they just put the cost over onto the commonwth that's exactly what they did. So you know, we're at fifty billion dollars and they say, oh well we might try and we might try and restrict their growth to say eight percent peradum or something. You know, this this is the this is the latest.
00:31:41
Speaker 3: You think that's a success.
00:31:43
Speaker 1: A fifty billion crowing at eight percent paradum, You think that's a success.
00:31:47
Speaker 3: Of course it's not success.
00:31:49
Speaker 1: But that's a program which is now completely and utterly out of control.
00:31:52
Speaker 3: Obvious, obvious.
00:31:54
Speaker 2: Can I ask you about Labour's changes to institutions and the two I'm thinking of particularly here is the Reserve Bank, the changes to the border of the Reserve Bank and some other governance changes. Experts have said, well, that's really at risk of politicizing the Reserve Bank, and then the Future Fund altering the remit of the Future Fund and real concern and you were its chairman after you establish it when you left politics. The real concern that people have that will be raided to pay for today's expenditure.
00:32:27
Speaker 1: Right, well, let me come into the Future Fund first, the future After we paid off debt, the government is still spending less than it raises. So what do we do with the money? And I had this idea. We set up a Future Fund, right to help austraight his future. That's why it's called Future Fund, very popular name, by the way, futureman. And so the money, it's like you put money in the bankment, it puts its money in the future. And I was the last Treasurer to put any money in the Future Fund. Have put any money in the Future Fund since I stacked No no, no, no no. So it's basically been living off the money I put in near on twenty years ago, and it's grown that very successfully to two hundred and sixty billion dollars.
00:33:26
Speaker 3: But I don't know.
00:33:27
Speaker 1: Nobody else has been putting money into the Future Fund. No money to put.
00:33:31
Speaker 2: In or fair point, fair point right.
00:33:36
Speaker 1: So the Future Fund should, in my views, is the way I always run.
00:33:41
Speaker 3: It's the way I said it up.
00:33:43
Speaker 1: Future It should look out for investments and get the best return. In my view, if the Future Fund can find a good investment, let's say, in developing our oil reserves, why not. If it can find a good investment in developing our gas receives, why not? Are you getting a good return? What's wrong with doing all this? We're a coal export. If the Future Fund invests in coal companies, why not you know?
00:34:18
Speaker 3: In other words, you know, just look for the return. Now, what the government has.
00:34:23
Speaker 1: Said is they're against new oil, don't really like gas, hate coal, right, So they've changed its mandate to say, oh, it's got to have a preference for renewables. Now this is very dangerous because once the government says go and put your money and this that's in, this is most likely to be lost, or a substandard investment or something else. So they've tried to harness that money, money which labor of course never put into the Future Fund, you know, money which of course wouldn't have even been put into the future Fund if they'd have had their way, because they would have they wanted to run deficits sort of skew it to this political agenda, right, very dangerous that kind of thing. And why should it be skewed if I just don't understand this point? You know, if Australia has good reserves of oil and good reserves of gas, why.
00:35:29
Speaker 3: Shouldn't we develop it?
00:35:30
Speaker 1: The idea that it's terrible for us to develop them, but it's okay for Iran and Saudi Arabia and the UAE to develop them, will buy it from them.
00:35:41
Speaker 3: Right.
00:35:42
Speaker 2: Does the level of state debt concern you? We're in Victoria right now. Its debt is more than Queensland, New South Wales, Tasmania combine, and I suspect after the budget, after the election in November, it'll be worse.
00:35:56
Speaker 1: It does consume me. So the comm Walt's got about a trillion dollars out in gross debt and the states haven't got quite a trillion, but well, getting up there at three quarters of a trillion dollars at the state level as well. Now what that means is the commonwth government's got to pay interest bill and the state governments have got to pay their interest bill. A lot of money going out and interest on inherited debty. At the moment, it's worse at the state level because the states don't really have much of a tax base to service their debts. What have they got, Well, they've got the gst okay, and then they have land taxes, stamp duties on properties.
00:36:46
Speaker 3: And this is why again these escalating.
00:36:47
Speaker 2: Property and the risk with rating agencies's got to be real.
00:36:52
Speaker 1: Well, you see, I actually think the rating agencies have been very easy on some.
00:36:57
Speaker 3: Of these states.
00:36:58
Speaker 2: You think it's worse.
00:36:59
Speaker 1: I think they've been very easy. And the reason the states haven't been downgraded.
00:37:06
Speaker 3: More than they have.
00:37:09
Speaker 1: Is that they assume that somehow the Commonwealth government's going to come.
00:37:13
Speaker 3: In and rescue these states.
00:37:15
Speaker 1: If the ratings agency looked at the state of Victoria as a standalone operation and said it can't rely on.
00:37:22
Speaker 3: A Commonwealth guarantee.
00:37:24
Speaker 1: I think it's rating would be significantly lower than it currently is. But they think to themselves, oh, Commonwealth government wouldn't let Victoria go with it. Too big to fail, too big to fail, So okay, we'll give it a bit of a pass. I actually think, you know, this could be.
00:37:45
Speaker 3: A wake up call for Victoria.
00:37:47
Speaker 1: If the ratings Agency said, well, look a standlone operation you're not that good, will downgrade you. I mean, it could be a wake up call. Something needs to wake up the state of Victoria. I mean, the waste and the debt and the projects has just been abysmal.
00:38:06
Speaker 2: Can the Liberal Party win in Victoria in November?
00:38:08
Speaker 1: I think it can. It's not a laydown moziir. I think it can. It's got to prosecute the case against the state government and it's got to show competence. I think most people agree this is the Victorian The Andrews Allen government is just hopeless. I don't think you find anybody that would say they've done a good job. For example, the critical question in the elections going to be you know, can the Liberal Party do better? And I think they've got to show competence. They've got to show some unity. I think the public wants a change of government, has just got to be satisfied that these people will do it.
00:38:53
Speaker 2: When Jim Chalmers says, you know, tax reforms on its way.
00:38:58
Speaker 1: See, I hate the use of this word tax reform when money means is tax rises.
00:39:04
Speaker 3: This is not reform. Putting up taxes is not reform.
00:39:08
Speaker 1: I regard reform as introducing a better tax system by which we can raise sufficient revenue with a lesser burden on people.
00:39:16
Speaker 3: That's tax reform.
00:39:18
Speaker 1: We'll do it in a simpler way. We'll do it in a way that will help our economy. We'll lessen the burden and we'll get sufficient. That's tax reform. Now, all he talks about is tax rises.
00:39:30
Speaker 3: This is not reform. Don't let him get away with that word.
00:39:34
Speaker 2: How do you write him as a treasurer?
00:39:36
Speaker 3: Well, what do you think? That's all? I'll say?
00:39:44
Speaker 2: Diplomatic? Has ever? Based on your feedback that I got last night and into today, you wish he was back, don't you. Yeah, we're in a bad way, We're in an absolutely bad way. But he's still got it, hasn't he. Before we leave the issue of debt and you pull out today In Australia, this might surprise you across all ages, gender, political persuasion, the whole lot of what being seventy percent of voters say they are worried about debt. Only twenty six percent say they're not worried. Four percent, well, they're in they don't no category. Now, what I found particularly telling even amongst young people. So these are aged eighteen to thirty four years of age, sixty six percent of them said that they are somewhat too very worried about debt. So ask yourself, then, why are not enough politicians talking about it? As Peter Costello and John Howard used to all right after the rain, the brilliant Ross Greenworthy pulls all that apart in the interview with Costello. The ndis so this talk of new taxes on gas that's coming out, welcome back, get your thinking caps on at home. Those two words that I say politicians get wrong all the time. They're coming out with kel They shouldn't know better, but they don't. Let's get some analysis though, and a whole lot of up with my good friend who's with me at the desk, Ross green would our business editor. We were just talking in the breakdown about the indis where it's different than almost every other program. It's open to everyone. I know, participants have to be eligibility, but it's universal and once you're in it, it's a golden ticket, right because they'll write a different program for everybody, and it's big licks of money two hundred and three hundred thousand dollars and it pays for all manner of things. We've heard washing machines, therm and mixes, trips to the theater.
00:41:31
Speaker 6: So where is that right? Where is that good use?
00:41:34
Speaker 4: Yes?
00:41:34
Speaker 6: So what was of the taxpayers?
00:41:35
Speaker 2: What have they missed today? What haven't they done that they should have done in terms of containing costs?
00:41:40
Speaker 10: Well, okay, in terms of containing costs, surely the costs should be contained to the growth in your economy and that group of people going in and being eligible to the NDIS.
00:41:52
Speaker 2: So shrink the pool based on how we're going in the economy.
00:41:54
Speaker 10: Of course, that's everything should be judged. That's what pet Gestelle was talking about. Cut your cloth according to what's in front of you. Now, if you sit there and say that they were thinking about the NDI is growing at eight percent, but you've got an economy right now that is growing possibly at less than two percent. How can you long term afford that without either a taxing people more or having a reduced standard living somewhere down the trail.
00:42:21
Speaker 2: So if you've got if you're a millionaire and you go to the doctor, and let's say you go and see a surgeon, Medicare will only pay you this much. Doesn't matter what your surgeon charges you. That's the amount on your Medicare slip. Doesn't matter who you are, it doesn't matter what, as I said, your surgeon charges. But with Medicare, it's complete, with the nyas, it's all over the shop. It's open ended. They said today they're going to run all the participants back over the rule of you know, back through the system, run the ruler over them.
00:42:44
Speaker 6: But how much is that going to cost for status?
00:42:46
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, and a talent is it going to take?
00:42:49
Speaker 10: And how did NDIS get bigger than Medicare in such a short space?
00:42:52
Speaker 2: The providers this scrutiny, that's right.
00:42:56
Speaker 6: No, that's right. So that's where they.
00:42:58
Speaker 2: Should be policing them provided.
00:43:00
Speaker 10: Because hasn't been a medi an NDIS provider become almost the biggest racket in Australia. If you're not on that then you're missing out. There are people who have literally made millions upon millions of do.
00:43:12
Speaker 2: I need to look at the electric providers. I need to look at the electorates where the NDIS providers are. And if there's lots of providers in labor electorates, they're not really going to tackle the ruts.
00:43:24
Speaker 6: Okay.
00:43:24
Speaker 10: And then then the second part of that, you sit there and say, the providers who have created businesses out of this booming businesses and to be fair to the government, they're now going to try and look at the style of provision and whether there is a racket going on, whether there is really roots happening, and if there are, of course there should be people put before the courts and made examples of so that really you try and stamp I.
00:43:48
Speaker 2: See the stories, I don't see the conviction.
00:43:50
Speaker 10: No, not I because quite clearly, as you say, politics will actually play out on.
00:43:54
Speaker 6: This communities in need.
00:43:56
Speaker 10: But the fact of the matter is for most Australians it feels like a rut, especially if this project has now got bigger than Medicare in such a short space of time.
00:44:06
Speaker 2: Okay, So based on what you heard today, can we even order can we even afford all?
00:44:10
Speaker 10: The answer is no, because the fact is we've got priorities as a nation, not just to indius, which is where you and I differ, because I believe it should be means tested. I think it should be means tested. I think there should be tougher means testing on childcare.
00:44:25
Speaker 2: Don't means test menycare. We don't meant we don't think we should pat the amount to.
00:44:30
Speaker 6: Can I say, but I don't think that.
00:44:32
Speaker 10: Yes, I agree with we don't means test medicare, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't means test other things, including the ndias. There are people who can afford to care for this disabled family members who should pay.
00:44:47
Speaker 2: Let's let's stop paying childcare to people earning half a million.
00:44:49
Speaker 6: No, I can't agree with that. That's right.
00:44:51
Speaker 2: Talked to me about gas because you interviewed someone very interestingly the other day, and I've got the grab talk us into it.
00:44:59
Speaker 6: So I just want to explain this.
00:45:00
Speaker 10: So at the show, we have taxation or not. That's the So this is the big issue right now. So as Peedextello, we've just heard said, when you hear the Treasurer say tax reform, what he's actually talking about is tax increases. Now, even this suggestion that we should tax the big gas companies and as people have indicated, and this is.
00:45:18
Speaker 2: True, we'll tax them more because they do pay tax now.
00:45:21
Speaker 6: They pay so much tax.
00:45:23
Speaker 10: And so look, my example is let's say, for example, you've got a laptop computer. You basically get the chance to write that computer off if it's for work.
00:45:32
Speaker 6: Until you pay your tax. You don't pay tax until you've written that computer off.
00:45:35
Speaker 10: If you've just spent twenty five billion dollars building a giant gas infrastructure project for Australia, you don't pay tax until it's been written not written down. Now, So get to Mike Worth, who is the global chair and chief executive of one of the world's largest.
00:45:51
Speaker 6: Energy companies, Chevron.
00:45:53
Speaker 10: Chevron built the biggest private infrastructure project in Australia, the Gorgan Gas Project, worth by the time it was finished fifty four billion dollars. Now, the fact of the matter is that when I spoke with Mike Worth last year late last year, he said, because of the delays in the approvals, because of the uncertainty of the tax situation in Australia and the fact that governments will come and grab more tax out of gas companies, he will not choose to invest another single dollar in a gas project in Australia.
00:46:27
Speaker 6: Have listen to this.
00:46:29
Speaker 11: It's a globally competitive marketplace that we face, others in our industry face, and our capital goes to the areas where we have predictability, where we have certainty, and these investments last for decades and so stability of policy and predictability and continuity of policy are fundamental to the decision process.
00:46:50
Speaker 2: If you listen to the social media influencers that are out there in that fronting a cent and inquiry this week, the inferences that don't pay any tax in Australia.
00:46:58
Speaker 10: Well, the reason why because they go to the Tax Office which puts out a list of who pays tax in Australia. Well, the fact is, if you've just bet fifty four billion dollars, you don't pay any tax until you've written off the fifty four billion dollars on the earnings that you've got. Now, to be fair to government, this government, previous governments, they crack down on the roots to allow businesses, including some of the big tech companies, basically taking their money from Australia and then putting the low tax jurisdictions. They made certain they were taxed here and that's really important. That it's important that when these companies suddenly get to the end of that depreciation phase, that they do pay their taxes. And that's what the petroleum resource rent tax is all about. So if we just sit tidy on these gas projects, we're going to get multi billions dollars of taxpayers money in once they've written them off.
00:47:48
Speaker 6: The real problem.
00:47:49
Speaker 10: I've got is there's no future projects coming because of the settings and the suggestions that we might tax the more. So they're saying, all right, we'll go to Mexico, we'll get Africa for the future gas developments.
00:48:02
Speaker 6: We won't go to Australia.
00:48:04
Speaker 2: I want to run a bit of a campaign you heard from Costello there. The changes to the Future Fund mean the Future Fund can only invest in windmills and solar farms, not on things we need like refineries. And it's a big ticket item. The government's not going to do it. If the Future Fund could, it'll be fantastic with this country. So there's an idea for you.
00:48:21
Speaker 6: Thanks so much better.
00:48:22
Speaker 2: All right, quick break, Kel, after the break, welcome back. Let's bring him in, Kel Richards. I want to start with one and I kid my viewers not here, kell I've caught our politicians of all stripes on this one before. They really don't understand the difference between debt and deficit.
00:48:44
Speaker 12: Okay, that means that which is owed. The word came into English and the thirteen hundreds, can I just mention as a very quicker side it used to be spelt de doublet, which is how we still say the word. And then in the sixteen hundred someone worked out there was a lack word in the background debatah, so a silent silent B was inserted to show that it came from Latin housily. But debt means that which is owed. Deficit means falling short, where income fall short of expenditure.
00:49:14
Speaker 6: Come into English pardon.
00:49:15
Speaker 12: Me from French in seventeen eighty four, it's very much like deficiency now. In government spending, the deficit is the annual falling short of government expenditure against government's income against expenditure, whereas the debt is all the borrowings over all the previous years added up. That's the government debt, that's the national debt. Whereas the deficit is each year the level that government income falls short of government expenditure and therefore there are borrowing. So the borrowings in one year are the deficit, and over all the previous years added together still owe. Because money we owe, that's the debt. Now does that make it any helpful at all?
00:49:58
Speaker 2: I just want to underscore for people at home to you know, governments will crow about being in surplus, that they crow that they're not running a deficit budget. But that just means in that particular year we as a country brought in more revenue than they spent. It doesn't mean that the underlying debt has been dealt with. You can be drowning and debt as we are in Australia a trillion dollars, but you can be running just a little bit behind and spending as opposed to what you're bringing in. Gott to leave it there. I'm sorry, I've been talking all night. We'll give you more time next week. Thank you. Kel all right, that's it for me to see tomorrow night
