Balance of Payments – March quarter 2005
May 31, 2005Tax Cuts – Interview with Leon Byner, 5AA
June 3, 2005Press Conference
Parliament House, Canberra
Wednesday, 1 June 2005
12.00 noon
SUBJECTS: National Accounts March Quarter 2005, Mandatory Detention, Air
Warfare Destroyer, GST
TREASURER:
The Australian economy rebounded in the March quarter showing growth of 0.7
per cent and through the year growth of 1.9 per cent.
Incomes continued to grow stronger than the general economy because the terms
of trade moved in Australia’s favour.
Household consumption was quite strong in March growing by 0.8 per cent but
that is more moderate than we have seen in recent years.
The mild downturn in the housing sector is now taking place. Dwelling investment
fell by 0.5 per cent and is down 3.8 per cent over the year. Now this is not
an unwelcome thing. I remember pointing out that we would not be upset if the
housing sector were to moderate. I believe that certainly it was growing at
an unsustainable pace and this is actually as mild a downturn as you could have
hoped for, and actually, quite a welcome downturn in the housing sector.
Although business investment was down in the quarter it is up over the year
and the profit share of the Australian economy is now at near records.
As I indicated yesterday in relation to the Balance of Payments figures –
exports are up, imports are up – but particularly disappointing is the
rural sector which is now very dramatically being affected by drought. Whilst
there have been some good rains in Western Australia and conditions look favourable
in the West Australian grain belt, unless we get rains shortly in eastern Australia,
crops will not be planted.
Farm incomes have now not recovered from the 2002-03 drought and agricultural
production is 16 per cent lower over the year to the March quarter, 16 per cent
lower. So, that is quite a significant impact.
Notwithstanding the drought, the condition of the Australian economy is strong.
Our unemployment is at 30 year lows – interest rates and inflation are
low – and again the measures of household prices in these National Accounts
are very low, well within the Government’s targets. Our Budget is in surplus
and Commonwealth Government debt is rapidly reducing.
Having said all of that, Australia needs to continue to work on economic reform
– I want to make that clear. The biggest economic reform that this country
now has to engage in is industrial relations reform. That will take reform into
every single workplace across this country and will boost productivity and lift
the capacity of the Australian economy. There is no more important reform for
Australia than industrial relations because it has the capacity to affect every
single workplace throughout this country.
But having said that, we welcome the fact that growth has rebounded in the
March quarter. I think I said to you when we had the December quarter National
Accounts that it did not feel like an economy which was growing at 0.1 per cent.
What this shows is it was not an economy which was growing at 0.1 per cent.
This is an economy which is growing around about 2 per cent per annum, a little
slower than it was previously but solidly rebounding nonetheless.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Costello you said the economy was growing strongly but (inaudible) actually
went backwards in the March quarter. Does that concern you?
TREASURER:
Well, some of them go backwards and some of them go forwards. But the important
thing is to look overall. Agriculture is going back, I make no bones about that,
and has gone back 16 per cent. The mining industry is going forward, not just
in price terms, but in volume terms. Let me give you some figures here –
iron ore volumes are up 14 per cent over the year, metallurgical coal is up
17 per cent. So, different areas of the economy are responding in different
ways, they are volumes for mining and we have still got the price pressures
to kick in. So, the economy is rebounding, it rebounded from the abnormally
low figure that we saw in December and it is growing at around about a 0.7 per
cent clip.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think that there will be any inflationary pressures that the Reserve
Bank should take into consideration?
TREASURER:
Well you see, this is my point, that I think the economy has actually slowed
a bit, that it is actually a bit slower than it was say, two years ago. Now
incomes are being supported by good terms of trade, there is no doubt about
that, but I do not see an economy which is accelerating here. I actually see
an economy which is a bit slower where we are now seeing the unwinding of the
housing story, which is welcome, and where we are now seeing lower credit growth
than we have seen for a number of years. So, what we have been wanting to see
is lower credit growth with the housing sector slowing, but not slowing in a
huge way, and so far so good. So, that is quite welcome.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Costello can we look forward to a slightly weaker June quarter given the
large build-up in inventories and also signs that consumer demand might be slowing
a little bit now?
TREASURER:
Well, I think consumer demand has slowed from what it was and I actually believe
that households might be consolidating their position, I hope so actually. I
think that is what might actually be occurring. In the June quarter, I do not
know that I would say you would see a slowing because I would expect the net
export position to improve. Net exports are still detracting from growth here
so I would expect that to improve. I expect incomes to be quite strong over
the next quarter, you will see a slowing in housing continuing, but it is an
orderly slowing. So, I would expect, you know, something of the dimension that
we are now seeing in the June quarter. Do not hold me to that of course.
JOURNALIST:
Treasurer could you just elaborate on what you mean by households consolidating?
TREASURER:
I think that there is the first tentative signs that people are now reducing
their borrowings and that is adding to savings and they are consolidating their
financial position. Now I do not want to overstate that but when you look at
what is happening in the housing market which is cooling, approvals coming down,
dwelling investment coming down, it is not because people are losing jobs, it
is not because their incomes are falling – it is because I believe there
is a consolidation going on. Actually I welcome that, to be frank, I welcome
that. And you also saw in the April Retail figures yesterday that they were
again lower than expected, there might be some seasonal reasons for that. I
think consumption is coming down, the housing market is plateauing, the economy
is growing a little bit slower, people may well be saving and this might be
a very good time for tax cuts to take effect on 1 July. Laura?
JOURNALIST:
Treasurer, these figures do show the economy slowing but they seem to suggest
earnings are actually rising. They are up by 1.9 per cent this quarter, which
is higher than the last two quarters. And also enterprise bargaining figures
today show 4.3 per cent wages growth, led by a 4.4 per cent growth in the public
sector. How concerned are you that we are seeing a direct transfer from the
terms of trade growth into incomes which could be an inflationary problem?
TREASURER:
Well the compensation of employees takes into account the fact that employment
has been strong, you’ve got to bear that in mind. This is…
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible).
TREASURER:
Yes, I know, but it is not just, it is not just a wage measure. The wage measures
are still around 4 per cent, and I take your point in enterprise bargaining,
the figures today showed a little bit higher. But, you know, frankly you would
expect it in enterprise bargaining to be a little bit higher. Why? Because the
whole idea of enterprise bargaining is to get higher wages backed off higher
productivity. That’s what we actually want.
So, I don’t think that there is any evidence yet that there’s a
general wages move on, but I do make this point, and I’ve made this point
before, that undoubtedly prices are booming in the mining industry. Undoubtedly
miners who are now engaging in huge new investments, $27 billion over the last
three years are sucking in skilled labour. The miners can afford it. That’s
not a problem for them. They’ve got 100 per cent price increases. What
would be a problem is if wage settlements that are occurring in the mining related
industries broke out into the general economy, like the manufacturing economy.
You can justify this in a mining industry where your price of coal has gone
up 100 per cent, but it is much harder to justify it in manufacturing which
I think is probably doing it tough at the moment, not the least because of the
exchange rate. So you’ve really got a different tale out there, I think,
if you’re in the commodities business, a good time to be in it. But let’s
not transfer their settlements into the general economy. This is, by the way,
what is wrong with centralised wage fixation. Once upon a time, you used to
break your wages out of competitive areas of the Australian economy into the
general economy. That’s what is wrong with it. That is why we believe
in enterprise bargaining, it can be justified in some areas, but that doesn’t
mean it can be justified in all areas.
JOURNALIST:
Treasurer, how bad will the tale get, do you believe, in the bush as a result
of drought? And do you share the concerns of the Deputy Prime Minister that
it could actually end up taking one per cent off GDP?
TREASURER:
Well, look, I make the point here that it has already taken off GDP, taken
off this year’s GDP, right. I think the non-farm economy grew at about
2.6 per cent, but the overall economy, what 1.9 per cent. So it has already
detracted. However, tell me when the rains will come and I’ll give you
a precise outcome as to the effect it will have. We still hope that there will
be rains in Eastern Australia. If there aren’t, things will be more difficult.
There have been rains in Western Australia. In fact, it could be a great time
for the West Australian grain belt because not only are they going to have production,
but they could have production when there’s a shortage of product. Prices
could be very high if you’re a West Australian grain farmer. But you tell
me when the rains will come and I’ll tell you the precise outcome of rural
production.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible)
TREASURER:
…None of us would continue working here though…
JOURNALIST:
Treasurer, what is your position on Petro Georgiou’s Private Member’s
Bills?
TREASURER:
Well, mandatory detention was introduced in Australia by the Labor Party in
1992 and I supported it then. And I haven’t changed my view. That was,
this is a very important point, it wasn’t introduced by this Government.
It was introduced by the Labor Party over 10 years ago. Many of the people that
are, many of the children, in particular, that are held in detention centres
on mainland Australia are not refugees. They didn’t come by boat. Most
of them are over-stayers. Now I think we should do everything we can to minimise
one, the number of children held in detention, and two, the time, obviously.
Everything we can. But one of the reasons for the delay is the court process.
It is very hard to get cases in the court in a month or two months or three
months. And I think that’s one of the problems with his Bill. His Bill
proposes going back to the court every 90 days for a new order. Well, if you
think you can get in to a court every 90 days and you think people are going
to be able to prove cases within 90 days, it is not the Australian court system
that I know.
JOURNALIST:
Should the Government be looking at trying to shorten and reduce the number
of levels of appeal that people can go through?
TREASURER:
Absolutely. I think we should shorten the number of appeals. You can go to
the Migration Tribunal, the Refugee Review Tribunal. Out of that you can appeal
to the Federal Court, out of that the Full Federal Court, out of that to the
High Court. And then people say, ‘oh, well how come it’s taken three
years?’ Well, you’ve gone through about 4 or 5 tribunals by now.
Now, personally, I think we should have far fewer tribunals and quicker decisions.
The problem has been, in the past, the problem has been one, legislating that,
and two, even if you do legislate that, the courts themselves decide that the
legislation is ineffective. They say, it is, you know, I won’t go into
the legal doctrine, it is all about privative clauses. They say you can’t
oust the jurisdiction of the court in certain circumstances. So, in a funny
kind of a way, I think the processes have become the victim of well-intentioned
lawyers who believe they are giving people more rights, but in the process of
giving people more rights, have delayed proceedings inordinately.
JOURNALIST:
Treasurer, is there a way around this, could the Government legislate effectively
to shorten the process and collapse the levels of appeal?
TREASURER:
Well the Government has been trying to do that for many, many years and I hope
that the Government could be successful in shortening the terms, shortening
the legalities, the legalism, you know, shortening. See a lot of these cases
that go into the courts Michelle, they don’t even go into the courts on
the question of whether you are a refugee or not, they go into the courts on
procedural questions. Was there natural justice? Was there an apprehension of
bias? You know, all these legal issues. Meanwhile people are waiting for their
decisions whilst all of this wraps through the court. This is why I don’t
think a Bill that says let’s go back to the court every 90 days, is going
to help. What do I think? I think the principle of mandatory detention which
was introduced in 1992 which I have supported should stand, but I think the
number of children in detention should be, we should take very step available
to minimise it. The time that is taken through the court should be minimised
as fas as possible. But you don’t want to compromise on that principle.
JOURNALIST:
So all children should be out?
TREASURER:
Look, can I say this? There is a view in the community that some of the children
that are in detention centres came here on boats – very few, if any –
what has happened, you will find that nearly all of those children, mainland
Australia, came here legally or their parents came here legally on tourist visas,
were picked up, agreed to leave, were picked up again, agreed to leave and at
some point, because they didn’t actually leave and they were overstaying
their visas were subject to detention. Now…
JOURNALIST:
Regardless of how they came shouldn’t they be released?
TREASURER:
…well, what should actually happen is, with many of these people and
I read about them in the press, it is known where their home is, there was a
case in the press from Tonga I think, what should happen is we should help these
people get back to Tonga, that is the answer in relation to this. And can I
make this point, I would be very surprised if someone from Tonga was a refugee.
Tonga doesn’t persecute its citizens, we know that.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) Georgiou Bill would like to, people found to be genuine refugees
to be allowed to stay, (inaudible) the temporary protection visa may have served
a purpose but now no longer does.
TREASURER:
Well look, there was a big shift I believe in the Government’s position
on this recently, when the Government announced a new category of visa for people
who couldn’t be repatriated that they would be given a new category of
visa which would give them rights, that would release them into the community
but the understanding would be, if, for some reason they could eventually be
repatriated they would agree with that. I thought that was an enormous modification
of the system. I supported that and I actually think that if you could get that
visa operating, you would make a great improvement. Now, you know, somebody
over your right shoulder there Paul, yells out that it is not being taken up
by as many as we would like and I understand that that is true, but it is there
and it is open. I also understand that some lawyers are advising their clients
not to take it up.
JOURNALIST:
Treasurer (inaudible).
TREASURER:
Come on, now, now, now, you have had a few.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Costello, are there more or less children in detention now than in 1992
and isn’t that one of the deficiencies (inaudible) 1992 law that perhaps
should be changed?
TREASURER:
I don’t know about that. To be frank, I have seen some figures that suggest
that during the nineties there were a lot more. I can find that out for you,
but my belief is that by historical standards the number is quite low at the
moment. That is my belief.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) deficiency whether there is, even if there are, you say you supported
the 1992 Bill, but doesn’t that suggest that something about it needs
to be changed.
JOURNALIST:
There were more people, boat people then.
TREASURER:
In ‘92, I don’t think there were in ‘92, there were certainly
a lot more in 2001, I am not quite sure about ‘92, but to my knowledge,
the number peaked in 2001 where in a short period of time there were well over
1,000 unauthorised arrivals. But the point I am making here of course is that
most of the people that are now in detention were not boat arrivals. They are
people who quite validly entered Australia on a visa and overstayed it and breached
it and you know, you shouldn’t actually wrap up mandatory detention. I
am going to make this point, I think it is an important point, mandatory detention
doesn’t just apply to unauthorised boat arrivals. We know there haven’t
been hardly any unauthorised boat arrivals since the end of 2001. Most of the
people that are in mandatory detention entered Australia on a student visa or
a tourist visa, they were told that they could stay in the country for a certain
period of time and they breached it. Now, as I understand it, most have been
given opportunity, after they have been picked up to leave, and have agreed
to, but haven’t. And after you have been given an opportunity, after a
while you are placed in detention. Do I like it? No, but what is the answer?
The answer frankly is to try and speed up the return of these people, not to
say, well you can live in the community because I think you might be a few more
over-stayers if you took that view.
JOURNALIST:
Treasurer, did you do everything you could to ensure, lobby for Melbourne to
get the air warship contract?
TREASURER:
I was a member of the National Security Committee that heard the recommendation
of the Australian Navy, the Defence Materiel Organisation, the technical advisers
and the financial consultants. I was thorough in my cross examination to try
and find holes in their recommendations. Unfortunately, there weren’t
any. The technical advice was that the ASC had the best technical capacity and
the financial advice was that the ASC bid was substantially cheaper.
JOURNALIST:
So you haven’t failed Melbourne?
TREASURER:
Well hang on, hang on, did you hear what I said? Did you hear what I said?
The financial advice which was presented incidentally by a Melbourne resident
from the firm of Carnegie Wylie, was that it was substantially cheaper. Now,
you explain to me how, when you are dealing with taxpayers money, you say, we
will ignore the cheaper bid and buy the more expensive one.
JOURNALIST:
How much cheaper?
TREASURER:
You explain that to me. And frankly, you know, I was at my best trying to pull
apart these financials, but the trouble is, if one price is less than the other
as found by the independent financial consultant who happens to be a resident
of Melbourne, gee that is letting the side down.
JOURNALIST:
How much cheaper?
TREASURER:
Substantially.
JOURNALIST:
And what do you say to the suggestion emanating from the Victorian Government
that somehow this was a slap in the face to you personally because of leadership
issues?
TREASURER:
Well look, how can I respond to everything that emanates from the Victorian
Government? You know, they ought to explain why their bid was higher. Let me
tell you this. If their bid had been lower, or even if it had been the same,
we’d have been in business here. But you have got to remember this, it
is very, very hard when you are dealing with taxpayers’ dollars to say,
oh we will ignore the lowest bid and go for the highest. Try explaining that,
Mr Harvey, try explaining that Sir. How would you do that, you know? Suppose
you are selling your house, and a bloke puts the highest bid at the auction,
‘I don’t want his money, no, no, no’ over the bloke that bid
ten times ago with a much lower price because I liked the cut of his jib. Now
try explaining that, it is very hard. You have got to remember at the end of
the day this is taxpayers’ money and when you have a technical adviser
that says, ‘better on technical grounds’, a financial adviser that
says ‘lower price,’ the Australian Navy that says ‘this is
the bid,’ a probity adviser who says, ‘I have walked all over this
and it is clean,’ what are you going to then say? Ignore all of the evidence?
Gee that would be a scandal. You would be, your paper would be right up that
scandal if…
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible).
TREASURER:
…they wouldn’t be up it if a footballer injured his knee that day,
that is for sure. They know a story when they see one down there.
JOURNALIST:
You spoke very strongly about industrial relations reform. Will you show the
same sort of leadership on the broader reform agenda outlined by the Productivity
Commission in its competition policy document a few months ago?
TREASURER:
Well, can I say this, I have been administering competition policy over the
last nine years. Whenever the National Competition Council made a finding against
a State and recommended applying a financial penalty, I applied it. How many
State Premiers supported me? Every singe State Premier took the view that he
was entitled to the money and didn’t have to do any competition and it
just became a game after a while. They refused to do anything that was required,
if they refused to do anything that was required, and I enforced a financial
sanction, it was always that mean Mr Costello taking our money away again. One
person was prepared to take that issue up and enforce it. If I may say so, we
didn’t get much help from the State Governments. Now we went through this
process, there are State Governments that as we speak, in you State, are now
subject to financial penalties because they refused to engaged in competitive
reforms. And you know, frankly a bit of scrutiny on why and how would be good.
There is a State Premier in your State who as at this moment is refusing to
cut indirect taxes in compliance with the GST agreement. Who is driving the
competition? Who is driving the tax reform? It is being driven from here. Now,
I think that the important thing now is not to go over chicken meat and rice
growers and hoteliers you know, which are all big competition issues, I think
the important thing now in a competition agenda is to go for the big items.
The big items are these; water, electricity, gas. They are the big items. So,
rather than you know, have money on offer for these State Governments for reforming
chicken meat and rice growing and hoteliers, we are going to save that money
and we are going to say, we are going for the big items now, here is money to
reform water, here is money to reform other areas and since we are going to
get involved in competitive agendas, what about IR? Name me an issue where we
need more competition reform than industrial relations?
JOURNALIST:
Infrastructure.
TREASURER:
I thought you were going to say media.
JOURNALIST:
Will this agenda be outlined on Friday at the COAG meeting, Mr Costello?
TREASURER:
Well I hope so, yes.
JOURNALIST:
Treasurer, the Grants Commission has said that the methods it is using may
be unreliable, does that mean that New South Wales has a case when it comes
to the amount of money they are getting back from GST?
TREASURER:
Look, can I say this, the formula for equalisation didn’t begin with
GST, it has been in place since the 1930s. The only thing that has happened
in the last four or five years is Bob Carr has got more money than he ever expected.
That is the only thing that has changed. The equalisation formula hasn’t
changed. The only thing that has changed is that he has got more money than
ever. Sitting flush with more money than ever, having an obligation, as we have
seen in the other states, to abolish taxes and refusing to do so because of
his financial problems. He has got to have an explanation. And what is the explanation?
The system of equalisation which began in the 1930s.
Now, I make this one other point to you. When Federation occurred in this country,
and when the States agreed that there would be equalisation between themselves,
New South Wales and Victoria as the two major States became what are called
donor States. Now, think about this very clearly. Victoria is a donor State.
Victoria apparently can abolish indirect taxes. New South Wales is a donor State.
New South Wales cannot…
JOURNALIST:
So what are you going to do about…
TREASURER:
…Why, just think about this for a moment. It is not because it is a donor
State, Victoria is a donor State. You know, you have had a mismanaged State
which far from abolishing taxes has been increasing them. And you do not want
to sort of say, you know, it is everyone else’s fault but the Premier’s.
JOURNALIST:
So what are you going to do Mr Costello about New South Wales and WA (inaudible)?
TREASURER:
Well…
JOURNALIST:
And when are going to do it?
TREASURER:
Well, we are going to deal with them after we finish with Federal Labor, alright.
Now, pardon? …
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) New South Wales?
TREASURER:
…I don’t think so Michelle, because we are trying to cut taxes
and Federal Labor is trying to stop Federal taxes being cut. This has to come
to a denouement before the 30th of June. And we will bring
it to a denouement before the 30th of June and, you know,
let me just remind you, here we are, the schedules have been in the House of
Representatives now for, I believe Thursday last week, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday,
we have not seen a motion of disallowance yet. Those schedules will hit the
Senate as soon as it sits on the 14th of June and the question is,
will Mr Beazley be moving his disallowance? The whole of Australia waits. Every
employer in this country needs to know and they need to know now. So, you know,
what is wrong with asking him to determine his position. All he has got to say
is what he is going to do, every single employer is in a state of flux and confusion
because he cannot tell you what his policy is on those schedules.
Now, this has to be fixed, it should be fixed today frankly. He should just
announce today he is either going to do it or he is not. You either will or
you will not. Tell us, because this is a huge problem, this is really a huge
problem for 850,000 employers…
JOURNALIST:
Back to the National Accounts, notwithstanding your earlier comments on household
savings. The National Accounts show the worst household savings in over a year
with consumer spending running significantly ahead of income growth. I was interested
in how you would explain that given your earlier comments. Also while I have
got your attention, the productivity results show further decline. I was interested
in your comments on why that is.
TREASURER:
Well, I think the productivity story is really an arithmatic story, that is
that GDP growth has slowed whilst employment is increased. It is just the outcome
of that. That is what is going on in the economy. On the household…
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) over the years?
TREASURER:
… Yes, that is the explanation of it. You could boost productivity in
the economy, in a slowing economy by putting off labour, of course you could.
But at a period where they are still putting on labour, that is the explanation.
On your other question which was household saving. The household savings, as
the National Accounts say, they warn that their consumption surveys are not
accurate and they have not been updated and they take into account depreciation
which is ground we have been down on many occasions. But I do believe, as I
said earlier, that there is evidence that people are not investing in housing
as much. And we do see that consumption is moderating and we do know that incomes
are growing and, as I said, what I believe that may herald, is households consolidating
their balance sheets. That is what I believe it may herald, and as I said earlier
if that were the case it would not disappoint us. Thanks very much.