Doorstop interview, Parliament House, Canberra

Subjects: superannuation policy, election commitment program Daniel Mulino: Really good to be here with you this morning. What’s clear this morning is that One Nation once again has gazumped the Liberal Party on a major area of policy, pre‑announcing a Liberal policy in effect. And not only is this bad policy, but it seems as though Angus Taylor may have a spy in the ranks.

What’s also clear from Barnaby Joyce’s interview last night is that One Nation is just not across the detail. They shouldn’t have just asked the Liberal Party for the policy, but they should have asked them for the details. He found it unreasonable to be asked what the likely impacts would be on people in their retirement if they took away from their contributions today, but what’s clear is that it will be very substantial.

To reduce their contributions by 3 per cent over 3 years, if you’re on the median wage, could leave people worse off by $25,000 and couples $50,000 worse off, based on modeling by SMC. Labor has built our superannuation system over decades, and what that has meant is that people can now retire with much more dignity than would have been the case without this world‑leading system.

But we understand that people are doing it tough, and that’s why, in addition to that, we are also providing people with supports in the here and now. We’ve supported higher wages through the award system and through increases in the minimum wage, a total of $12,000 over the course of this government. We’ve also delivered 5 tax cuts in 3 different ways, and in total, they will mean that people will have, on the average wage, around $2,800 less in their tax bills.

That’s the best way to support people in their cost of living. What we’re seeing from One Nation and also the Liberal Party is not just an alignment in their policy, but bad policies. Bad policies that are the wrong way to deal with our retirement income system, that weakens our retirement income system, but also bad policies that are the wrong way to support people with cost of living.

I’m happy to take any questions. Journalist: Can you explain why three-quarters of the funds from a community grants program went to labour‑held seats, and how is that not thought barreling? So this is a very specific type of fund that was set up to deliver election commitments, and it’s long‑standing practice that that kind of fund will be set up, it will deliver the election commitments, and then that grant program will be shut down.

It’s specifically designed to allow governments to follow through on the promises that they have made. The Auditor-General has indicated that it is sound policy to set up these kinds of grants programs to deliver election commitments, and that it’s sound to do it in the way that we have done it, so long as there are appropriate selection criteria and eligibility criteria and appropriate appraisals.

And under the process that was set up by the minister, it did require that projects demonstrate benefit for the community. So this is long‑standing practice as a way of ensuring that governments follow through and deliver on what they said they would. Journalist: How many of the applications that were promised by Labor in the election campaign were rejected because there wasn’t a public interest grant?

So I don’t have specific details on all the elements of the grants program, but what I can indicate is that the grants program was run in a way that is consistent with best practice. That is consistent with the practices longing practice. So – Journalist: [inaudible] ..how could you know that it was best practice?

The processes that were set up, the requirements that projects had to satisfy. So that’s exactly long‑standing practice that after an election, commitments will be put through a process along the lines that we have set up, and that process is one that the Auditor-General has said is sound practice in order to ensure that governments can deliver on their commitments.

Journalist: Can you provide other examples where a grant scheme is being invite only? Well, as I said, this is something which the Auditor-General has indicated is sound practice, and it’s something which successive governments have done over a long period of time. It’s a practice which is designed in order for governments to be able to live on specific things that they committed to, and to do it in a way where they are doing so in the interests of the taxpayer.

Journalist: So, do you have any examples, though? I don’t have specific examples, and you might want to follow up with the portfolio minister. But what I can say is that I have.

It’s clear that this is standard practice. It’s been practice, which has been ticked off, and all of the processes that were undertaken here were consistent with government guidelines. Journalist: Just because it’s consistent in standard practice, do you think the Australian public will still look at this and think, ‘Yeah, that’s an appropriate way to spend our money.

That’s the appropriate seats to put it in.’ So I think that where there are specific commitments made in an election, I think people expect those to be followed through on. So this is really a mechanism which is designed to follow through on specific programs that we’re committed to. So in an election, there will be a whole raft of commitments made by the 2 or other parties contesting that election, and it’s important that after the election, the government that is incoming can follow through on things that it’s specifically committed to, and this is reflected in the comments of the Auditor-General.

So long as there are processes where there are appropriate eligibility criteria, and that there are evaluation criteria, evaluation mechanisms that ensure that there is public benefit. That is a sensible way for incoming governments to deliver on their promises. Journalist: Is this sour grapes from the parties that didn’t win the election.

Because they don’t have as many seats, they don’t get implement their promises? Well, in this particular program, there were a number of grants that were allocated to non‑government seats, and that’s appropriate. There were there were grants provided to government and non‑government seats.

The allocation across different electorates reflected the promises made, and this is as it should be. Parties make promises in elections, and people expect that after the election they’ll follow through and deliver on those particular programs. Journalist: Did you have an issue with the government doing this again at the next election?

Well, I think that if we go to the next election with promises, people will expect us to deliver on those promises, and I think that’s a reasonable expectation. Journalist: But isn’t the problem that the promises are being made in specific areas and not in others? It’s not that the promises are being followed through on.

It’s that too many promises are being made in Labor seats and in seats that are beneficial for Labor during the election, and not enough promises are being made in non‑Labor seats. So all parties make a combination of promises that are programs at a higher level that have impacts across the whole country or across very large regions, and there are also promises that are made in relation to specific projects in particular areas.

That’s very normal, and that I’m sure will continue, that parties will make commitments in relation to local projects. And as I said, I think it’s entirely appropriate that if after an election an incoming government is then expected to follow through on delivering those localities. Journalist: You’re not addressing the distribution of promises.

You’re saying promises are made, promises are fulfilled. About the distribution, that’s the issue at the core of this of this revelation. It’s the distribution.

But that is something which parties, all parties, make promises at an election, and then people vote in the election, based on what distribution of promises are made by those parties, then after the election, parties are expected to then deliver those promises. And as I said, this particular grants program is a particular grants program which is delivering on those election commitments.

It is set up in a way that it is to deliver those projects and that it is closed. It is different to ongoing grants programs, which have a different structure, and that’s why the Auditor-General has made the observation that it’s appropriate to set it up in the way that we have, so long as there are appropriate eligibility criteria and assessment mechanisms. Journalist: Given how hard Labor in opposition criticised the coalition for sports rorts, even though the coalition at the time saying that everything was done within the rules, this was all election commitments and everything was above board.

There were still, you know, many criticisms from Labor at the time for this. Isn’t it hypocritical now for you guys while in government to say that everything’s hunky‑dory and everything makes the vibe test? No, but I don’t think you’re comparing apples and apples.

In that the previous program, I don’t think was entirely consistent with the process that I’ve just laid out. I don’t think it was consistent with best practice. So what we’ve done through the program that was administered after the last election is consistent with best practice.

Is consistent with delivering on election commitments in a way that is consistent with government rules. Journalist: A lot of those seats that got grants weren’t Labor seats at election time. You picked up about 20 seats.

Is that sort of skewed? I think that sort of skewed the very important in terms of the claims the critics are making. Look, I think that the distribution of promises that are made are a matter for each party in the lead‑up to elections, and that’s what the people are assessing.

They’ll look at, as I said, major programs that are sometimes nationwide, in other cases more regional. But then each party will make specific local commitments, and so that’s what’s being assessed. And I think it’s incumbent on governments to then deliver on that, and that’s really what we’re talking about here: setting up a mechanism that can deliver in a timely way on those election commitments.