Doorstop - Parliament House

SUBJECT: Bradbury’s pre-Budget ‘consultations’ E&OE................................ Hon Christopher Pyne MP: Well ladies and gentlemen the Assistant Treasurer David Bradbury has a lot of questions to answer. He needs to come into the Chamber or do a press conference and make a full explanation to the claims that are being made about his actions which we understand occurred today. Essentially David Bradbury needs to outline who he rang today if indeed he did ring businesses today to discuss these changes to thin capitalisation rules in tonight’s budget. Why he rang them, he needs to explain if he had advice from the department to do so, in which case he needs to release that advice so that everyone from the market can see who was given a heads up about any changes in tonight’s Budget to thin capitalisation rules. He needs to assure the markets that no unfair competitive advantage was given to certain businesses about the thin capitalisation rule changes. And if in tonight’s Budget there are changes to thin capitalisation rules and if indeed businesses did have, some businesses did have a heads up or an unfair advantage over others, this is very sensitive market information and if that’s the case, if tonight in the Budget those rules have been changed he will need to resign or he will need to be sacked by the Prime Minister. Journalist: What accusation are you putting… Pyne: Well the information the Opposition has is that the, it’s alleged that the Assistant Treasurer rang certain businesses today to discuss changes in tonight’s Budget to thin capitalisation rules. Now that is very market sensitive information. If it’s the case then he is in very serious trouble. I asked him in the Parliament today whether he could reassure the markets that no businesses that he spoke to received an unfair competitive advantage. He said no, that he couldn’t reassure the markets of that information. In which case he either misheard my question or if he answered it honestly and he can’t reassure the market then he should resign. If on the other hand he misheard my question and gave the wrong answer then he needs to come back in to the Chamber and correct that answer. But he needs to make a full explanation to the Parliament or a statement to the press about his actions today and why he spoke to certain businesses, who those businesses were and what he was trying to achieve by imparting secret Budget information to them before the lock up and before tonight’s Budget. I mean in the lock up of course, as you would know, media are required to give up their mobile phones to not communicate with anyone outside the lock up because Budget information is the most sensitive information that the Government releases. The purpose of the Budget is to make an announcement like this so that the entire market can get that information at the same time. It’s not designed to allow certain businesses to be told in advance of the Budget if changes are being made to thin capitalisation rules because it will affect their financial position, it affects how much tax they pay and its information businesses would want to have. Journalist: Have you been told by one of the businesses have you about this…(inaudible) Pyne: Well I’m not going to breach confidences, but we have very real and serious information from businesses that claim that they were spoken to by the Assistant Treasurer today. Now if that’s not true he needs to come out and deny that. But if it is true he needs to explain why that is the case and what he was seeking to achieve by passing on any information. Journalist: How many companies do you know who have been spoken to? Pyne: I can’t tell you that. Journalist: (inaudible) Pyne: I haven’t examined the markets to determine that. We received this information shortly before Question Time. I asked him the question; he admitted that he had been consulting with businesses, he was evasive and when I asked if he could reassure the House that no one had been given an unfair competitive advantage, he said no that he couldn’t reassure the House of that. Journalist: (inaudible) Pyne: I’m not privy to the alleged conversations. Journalist: But you said you’ve been told by the businesses what’s happened with specific knowledge of what’s in tonight or is it consultation? Pyne: Well I’m not at liberty to reveal the conversations that we the Opposition has had with these businesses. If I’m placed in a position where I can reveal that, I will do so. Journalist: (inaudible) Pyne: Yes, the information is that the, the information is about what is in the Budget tonight ahead of the Budget’s release. There is no more consultation with business about Budget changes because obviously the Budget has been printed and journalists are in the lock up. Journalist: In the Parliament you mentioned the word reports was it reported to you or was it reports to a third party like a media organisation? Pyne: Not reports to a media organisation, reports to the Opposition. Journalist: (inaudible) Pyne: Well I didn’t hear him say that in the Chamber. I heard him in his first answer evade the question but admit that consultations had occurred and when I asked him specifically if he could reassure the House that no competitive advantage had been gained, he said no. If he was wrong, if he meant to say yes then he needs to come into the House and correct the record. Journalist: He went on to say so that general practice is not to give unfair advantage … but considering at this stage it is an accusation …….(inaudible) Pyne: Well obviously, Government policy should not be to give any businesses unfair competitive advantage over others so that’s axiomatic over being the assistant Treasurer. The point is that David Bradbury needs to come out explain who he spoke to, why he spoke to them. Whether he received Departmental advice to do so; if so, he needs to understand that that is potentially FOI-able and that the Opposition will be pursuing it. Journalist: So you’re saying he rang them this morning not with anything to do with consultation … Pyne: The allegation is that he spoke to businesses today about changes in the Budget tonight to do with thin capitalisation rules. He did not obviously release a statement at the same time to all the market and if that’s the case, it’s a very serious matter he needs to take it seriously. Journalist: (inaudible) Pyne: Well we have put a specific allegation. The allegation is that he spoke to businesses ahead of the Budget and talked to them about changes in the Budget to thin capitalisation rules and that that gave those businesses an unfair competitive advantage and if in tonight’s Budget that, there are changes to thin capitalisation rules then that is a very serious matter which he needs to explain . Journalist: There has been a lot of coverage these last few weeks about thin capitalisation being changed in the Budget. How does that change if it’s market sensitive now, compared to over the weekend when there were a lot of reports. What exactly …. Pyne: Well, the allegation is that he spoke to them today and speculation from the media is quite different to certain businesses being given a specific advantage, over others to do with changes in the Budget which is being released tonight. Journalist: Would you allege that those companies have influence over Labor? Pyne: These are questions that Mr Bradbury needs to answer. Journalist: (inaudible) Pyne: Well, he needs to explain why he called them ahead of the Budget if indeed he did call them ahead of the Budget. That’s a question that Mr Bradbury needs to answer and certainly institutions would want to get information as soon as possible about their maximum deductible debt because it effects their capacity to reduce their taxation by claiming debt against their Australian operation, so therefore there is a very serious financial advantage to being able to change your arrangements ahead of the Budget. Thank you. ENDS.