Katharine Murphy, deputy political editor
theguardian.com, Sunday 12 October 2014
Treasurer broadly stands by argument that Labor’s support for the government on Iraq should extend to passing budget measures, which the prime minister refused to endorse
An RAAF airman with one of the six Super Hornets conducting missions over Iraq on Saturday. The cost of munitions will be a major element of the final cost of the Iraq campaign. Photograph: Max Blenkin/AAP
Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey remain on different pages concerning the current budget stalemate in the Senate and financing the costs of the Iraq conflict.
The treasurer last week made a blunt point about bipartisanship and the Iraq conflict. Hockey told reporters in Washington that if Labor supported military intervention in Iraq the opposition should “immediately pass the remaining measures in the budget” to help finance the costs of the conflict, which are estimated to be in the hundreds of millions.
“Everything comes at a cost and if Bill Shorten truly is honest about his commitment to deliver bipartisan support in relation to our defence efforts in the Middle East he’ll provide bipartisan support to pay for it,” he said.
The prime minister however last week declined to endorse Hockey’s point about the budget. Tony Abbott instead praised Labor’s bipartisanship on Iraq, describing the Labor leader Bill Shorten as a “patriot”.
But Hockey on Sunday stood by the broad principle of the argument he mounted last week, he just mounted it in a more diplomatic formulation. The treasurer told the ABC he welcomed “Mr Shorten’s support on Iraq, as does the prime minister and I think the Australian people would welcome that as well.”
“But we have to pay for this. We have to pay for this. Now, we’ve offered savings in the budget that help us to strengthen the budget position that means that we shouldn’t have to increase taxes to pay for the security activity in Iraq and elsewhere,” Hockey said Sunday.
“But we want Mr Shorten to help us with this and it was Labor that created the mess … and we’re just asking them to help us fix the mess.”
Later on Sunday the prime minister also dug in behind his position from last week. At a media conference in Brisbane he repeated his gratitude for bipartisanship on Iraq. “I appreciate Labor’s constructive support for the government on national security issues. I have said many times, let me say it again, it is good that the government and the opposition should stand shoulder to shoulder together on questions of national security.”
Abbott said he would like more bipartisanship on matters of economic security “but look, I appreciate that we don’t have the same tradition of bipartisanship on economic issues that we’ve mostly had on national security issues”.
“While I can appeal to Mr Shorten to say look, come on, it’s not good enough just to criticise, you’ve got to give us some solutions here, while I can and do do that, I’m grateful for the support that they’ve given us on national security,” he said.
On Sky News, the Labor frontbencher Anthony Albanese continued to insist the passage of the budget and financing the Iraq war were separate issues, and should not be linked.
He said Labor objected to various cuts and revenue measures in the May budget not because they were cuts per se, but because of the impact of the measures on low income Australians.
“Because you oppose a new tax being put on every time you visit the doctor, somehow that draws into question your bipartisanship? That is where Joe Hockey made not just a strategic error but a fundamental political error as well,” Albanese said.
He said the government was in no position to heavy the opposition when it had made spending decisions adding to the deficit since taking office; declined to pursue revenue measures, like tightening up fringe benefits tax compliance on company cars; and also proposed to implement an expensive paid parental leave scheme costing more than $5bn.
“Let’s by all means have a debate about the budget but don’t draw into question our position on national security.”
Albanese declined to answer a question about how the conflict should be funded. He said Labor was not the government, and would consider all funding proposals on their merits.
