Terrorism Insurance
October 25, 2002Housing figures; Point Nepean
October 31, 2002TRANSCRIPT
of
THE HON PETER COSTELLO MP
Treasurer
Interview with Catherine McGrath
AM
Wednesday, 30 October 2002
8.15 am
SUBJECTS: Terrorism; Defence; Commonwealth Government Securities Market
options; Labor; Sugar
McGRATH:
Treasurer, good morning…
TREASURER:
Good morning.
McGRATH:
…if we can start with the issues of terrorism, defence and Australia’s prospects.
The Defence Minister has said that we might need a billion dollars to support
our defence capability for the future. There is also prospects of possible engagement
in Iraq. What is your bottom line about Australian spending especially as the
drought is impacting on the economy?
TREASURER:
Well, there has been an enormous build-up in defence spending by this Government
over the last three years. In addition to the normal Defence budget the commitment
in East Timor was about a billion dollars per year and it continues.
We then announced White Paper funding of $23 billion over 10 years, an increase
that was over and above the normal budget, and over and above East Timor.
McGRATH:
Will there be more though, I guess that is the question now, is there more for
the future?
TREASURER:
Well, I am just going through it. We then announced in the last Budget another
$1.4 billion build-up for security matters over five years. And then in addition
to that, the commitment in Afghanistan, so, the defence build-up in spending
terms – all perfectly legitimate and justified in my view – has been very strong
over recent years. Now, I think the $1 billion extra figure that was put out,
was actually put out by Paul Dibb, not by the Defence Minister. But obviously
in the light of events in relation to terrorism, in the light of events in relation
to Iraq, the Government will look very carefully at whether or not additional
resources are needed.
McGRATH:
Treasurer, the future of Commonwealth bonds, a boring topic perhaps to some,
but crucial to the markets and to the Australian economy in general. Now, as
debt is reduced you have indicated that there may be no further need for bonds,
but you have so far failed to fully outline what your specific preference is.
There will be a Government Options Paper today. Can you tell us now what is
your option?
TREASURER:
Well, we’re releasing an Options Paper today as to how we would manage the Commonwealth
debt market in the future as we continue to pay down debt. As you know, when
the Government was elected the Commonwealth debt was $96 billion, and we have
now managed to repay $60 billion of that Labor $96 billion debt. Now some in
the market say, well, because you have re-paid so much debt there are not enough
bonds on issue to keep the market liquid. And superannuation funds like buying
these bonds, although they are not high yield bonds, they are safe and they
want to keep the bonds going, not because we need the borrowing but because
they see them as a useful investment for their members and a useful investment
to price interest rates. So, today I am releasing a paper to fairly and squarely
raise this issue as to whether we need a bond market at all. If we had the capacity
to re-pay debt, I would prefer to repay all our debt. If our privatisation programme
were to continue, we would have the capacity to re-pay all of our debt. But
I want to raise that fairly and squarely, let the financial markets put in their
bids, and see whether or not they can convince us that we do need to keep that
bond market. Now I stress that this is not something that is going to happen
next week or next month, this is something we would face in a year or two and
particularly as our privatisation programme proceeds.
McGRATH:
Well, it is a crucial issue though because ending the bond market would be,
as I understand it, a world first. One of the other options put out is that
you could issue bonds for unfunded Commonwealth superannuation liabilities.
Do you favour that option?
TREASURER:
Well, the other alternative to re-paying all of our debt is to keep the bonds
out there, because superannuation funds and others like to buy them, and then
build an asset portfolio which we could use to fund superannuation for public
servants. So, let’s suppose you had $50 of borrowings out there you would have
$50 billion of borrowings out there, you would have $50 billion in equities
or other investments against superannuation. Now, that would be a bit tricky.
I mean, there are three things that worry me about that. One is, if you have
a large asset portfolio you can take big losses, and we have seen that with
some of the States. Secondly, if you had such a large portfolio out there, the
Commonwealth would be a very large player in financial markets and could move
those markets. Thirdly, of course, you have got to factor into your thinking
that one day, you could get a Labor Government back in power and it would then
have the ability to run down that asset portfolio, sell the money for its pet
projects, so you would have to try and think of a mechanism of keeping that
away from future Governments to waste.
McGRATH:
Treasurer, the key factor here though, is, is debt going to continue or is debt
going to end. You know, if Telstra is sold will you remove all debt? What is
your preferred option on that?
TREASURER:
Well, as I have already said, my preferred option, as we have the capacity to
pay down more of that debt, is to do so. But, the markets say they would prefer
you would to hold out bonds matched by assets. Now, I have published this Paper,
I have put in this Paper, which I will be releasing today, the pros and the
cons and I have said to the markets, you persuade us as to the need to keep
out those Commonwealth Government bonds. If you can you have got a fair hearing,
if you can’t we will proceed with our debt repayment programme.
McGRATH:
Treasurer, can we move on to the sugar issue? A new tax, 3 cents per kilogram,
the industry says it stinks basically?
TREASURER:
Well, the industry representatives have protested as I expected they would,
and that is fair enough. We have situation where the sugar growers, particularly
in north Queensland, are facing prices which are ruinous to them. The Government
has announced a re-structuring package to help some of those get out of the
industry or get out into other crops. Now, I want to make this entirely clear,
this is not just income support. This is a re-structuring package to try and
fix the problems that have been bedevilling the industry…
McGRATH:
Can I raise a point…
TREASURER:
… and of course you have to fund that. Now, we have said that the fairest
way to fund it, is with the levy on the price, because it is the low price at
the moment that is causing the growers all of this difficulty.
So, if you have a 3 cents on the price with the money going for re-structuring
of the industry, at the end of the day when the levy comes off and the industry
is re-structured, the farmers are put onto a commercially sustainable footing.
McGRATH:
Now, Labor says this morning that this is just a Wholesale Sales Tax all over
again?
TREASURER:
Well, Labor said it would support it, then Labor said it may not support it,
and then this morning they say that they wait to be convinced. Well, we will
put this into the Parliament. This not money that is going to the Government.
This is money that is going to the sugar farmers. And if Labor wants to say
that it is against re-structure for sugar farmers in north Queensland, let them
do so. But all I have heard them say to date is that they are in favour of it
they just don’t want to pay for it. The truth of the matter is if you want to
re-structure you have got to pay for it.
McGRATH:
This is a difficult one for you to argue because you argued against it in the
Cabinet and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry have made this point,
that you must fully understand, they say this undermines the continued micro-economic
reforms of the past 20 years. Now that is exactly the sort of thing you talk
about when you make speeches?
TREASURER:
Well, absolutely I do, and you are obviously better informed as to what goes
on in Cabinets than me, Catherine. But, and I don’t agree with the pre-supposition
of your question at all. But the point I have consistently argued is this: that
if you want to get the sugar industry onto a sustainable basis, it needs re-structure.
This has been one of the most regulated industries in Australia. They used to
determine how much you could grow, who you had to sell it to, where you could
grow it and all of this kind of thing. It is clear that there are many people
who do not see a viable future and want to be re-structured out of the industry
and the Government is making $45,000 grants available to them. The idea is to
get the farming community of north Queensland and New South Wales as well, the
sugar-cane farmers, on to a sustainable basis. Now, to re-structure that industry
you need funds and the fair way to do it, I think, is in relation to the price,
because it is the low price that has actually caused their difficulties.
McGRATH:
Treasurer Costello, we will have to leave it there, thanks for your time.
TREASURER:
Thank you.