TONY JONES: Good evening and welcome to Q&A. I'm Tony Jones, live from Penrith Panthers Rugby League Club in Western Sydney. Answering your questions tonight, the Australian Treasurer Joe Hockey. Please welcome our special guest. Thank you. And Q&A is being simulcast on ABC News 24 and News Radio as usual. You can join the Twitter conversation by using the #qanda hashtag on your screen. If you'd like to put a question via Twitter for the Treasurer at @qanda to the end of your tweet to help us find your question. Well, it's fair to say that the Treasurer's first budget has had mixed reviews. The latest opinion polls show voters turning away from the Government, apparently angry about what many see as broken promises. Well, despite the bad news, Joe Hockey has had the courage to come on Q&A and answer questions from ordinary Australians. Let's go straight to our first question, it's from Karl Baresic.

TONY ABBOTT'S APPROVAL

KARL BARESIC: The latest Newspoll shows an approval rating for Tony Abbott as low as that as Julia Gillard when she was in office. Most people are blaming this on the budget. Did you believe this budget would influence the support of the party in the way that it has?

JOE HOCKEY: Yes. Yes. Of course it would because we were making decisions and we are making decisions that we believe are in the best interests of the country and some of those will be unpopular. We understand that. We understand it's going to have an impact on people. But, fundamentally, you've got to do what's right for the country and that's what we're doing.

TONY JONES: Did you factor in these kind of polling results?

JOE HOCKEY: You don't factor in polling results like this. I mean, look...

TONY JONES: So they've come as a shock, have they, because I mean...

JOE HOCKEY: No. No. They haven't come as a shock but you've got to do...

TONY JONES: It is the worst received budget since 1993?

JOE HOCKEY: Well, you know, for the last - basically there hasn't been a tough budget in Australia since 1996. Governments have been - after the '96 budget, governments have been handing out money and at various points it was based on extra revenue from the mining boom. In more recent years it has been borrowings. They have been borrowing money and handing it out. It has to come to an end. So when the $900 cheques were going out, we said it was unsustainable. It will end up in some degree of pain and what we're trying to avoid is that the pain applies as fairly as possible across the electorate.

TONY JONES: Briefly on this, Tony Abbott said the Howard Government received bad reviews and bad polling after that '96 budget. It's not true, was it?

JOE HOCKEY: Well, it took a little while to filter - filter out, yeah.

TONY JONES: But the immediate polls were very good

JOE HOCKEY: Look, I - Tony, I haven't - I'm not spending my days looking at polls. I'm spending my days looking at the policies that are going to improve the quality of life of every day Australians.

TONY JONES: Let's go to our next question. It's from Jillian Harrington.

HOWARD'S BATTLERS

JILLIAN HARRINGTON: Mr Hockey, we're here in Penrith, which is the heartland of John Howard's battlers, where the average personal income sits at about just under 10% of your own as Treasurer. You have enjoyed what many would call a privileged education at some of this country's finest institutions. I'm really curious about how it is that you managed to stay in touch with what the reality of everyday life is like for the ordinary Australians to whom Tony refers.

JOE HOCKEY: Well, I grew up in a small business family. My father came as a migrant from Palestine with no money. My mother didn't have any money and they set up a delicatessen and worked really damn hard to give their four children an education. And I was the first of all my family to go to a, you know, a private school that is well-known. I was the first of all my family on both sides to ever go to university. My parents - my father never attended a game of sport on a Saturday because he worked every Saturday and he and Mum worked every Saturday and many Sundays to try to get the business going. So, I understand how hard it can be.

JILLIAN HARRINGTON: In a time - in when a university education was affordable for people in that bracket.

JOE HOCKEY: But it wasn't terribly accessible. It wasn't terribly accessible and it is far more accessible now than it has been previously and more Australians are going to university now than ever before and the fact is no student now pays a dollar upfront to go to university. They get a concessional loan from the Government and that means that accessibility is greater, particularly for lower-income Australians, than ever before, and we should celebrate that, and both sides of politics.

TONY JONES: Okay, I'll just - I'll quickly go back to our questioner. At the heart of your question, are you questioning whether or not the Treasurer is connected to ordinary Australians?

JILLIAN HARRINGTON: No, I'm generous - genuinely curious about how. I hear in the history that you come from those origins but I'm wondering, in a contemporaneous sense, how you actually - where does - how does that information make its way to you?

JOE HOCKEY: Well, the fundamental point is I know that only through hard work can you get ahead and that you've got to give everyone the opportunity to lift. It's about equality of opportunity in Australia. That's what our nation is framed on. Equality of opportunity. Not necessarily equality of outcome but you've got to give everyone the chance to be their best and that's through the education system, that's through the welfare system. That's through every part of our lives. We've got to give people the opportunity to be their best and that's what we're trying to do.

TONY JONES: Okay. All right. We've got a lot of questions tonight. We've got a lot of questions. Let's go to Adam Renshaw.

LIES & ELECTIONS

ADAM RENSHAW: Mr Hockey, according to Alan Kohler, the last politician to tell the truth about our budget was John Hewson and we all know how that ended.

JOE HOCKEY: And he didn't deliver one.

ADAM RENSHAW: Therefore - therefore, do you think it's inevitable that politicians need to lie to get elected and do you think that an Opposition that was truly truthful would ever win an election?

JOE HOCKEY: No, I don't think you have to lie to get elected.

TONY JONES: Can I just ask you do you still maintain that no direct promises were broken in the lead-up to this budget?

JOE HOCKEY: Well, yes, and I will say why. I'll say why. For example, we said number one we would stop the boats and we have stopped the boats. Right? We have stopped the boats and we are - we are closing nine detention centres - nine detention centres we are closing, because we have stopped the boats. Number two, we said we would get rid of the carbon tax and we are getting rid of the carbon tax because that is a hit on families. Number three...

TONY JONES: All right. I'm just going to...

JOE HOCKEY: Sorry.

TONY JONES: Just before you go on, I am just going to issue a warning, if I can, to the audience. You are here to listen. You are here to ask questions. It is not a good idea to heckle. If you can avoid that, that would be great. Let's go on to...

JOE HOCKEY: Oh, hang on. I had two more points.

TONY JONES: Let's go on to - finish your answer. Well, okay, make them quick.

JOE HOCKEY: Well, number three, we promised to build the infrastructure of the 21st Century and we're doing that, particularly here in Western Sydney, where we're committing billions of dollars to build a second airport, to roll out the roads that need to be built, and the fourth area that we've focused on is fixing the budget and that's what we're doing.

TONY JONES: Okay. That was a question about promises and we've got another question on that subject. It's from Tyler McInally.

LIES & BROKEN PROMISES

TYLER MCINALLY: Prior the election, the Prime Minister promised that a Coalition Government would deliver no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no cuts to pensions, no changes to GST and no cuts to ABC or SBS. How can you then defend the budget which you delivered last week, which basically went against everything you promised to deliver when elected?

JOE HOCKEY: Tyler, we have to do what is right. Now, what we are doing is we're increasing education funding substantially over the next three years, which is the four years that we promised to do it in. Right? So it was this year and the next three. We're doing that. We're increasing education funding substantially by nearly 9% per year for the next three years. In fact...

TONY JONES: Well, the states are saying quite clearly that you're reducing hospital funding up to, I think, from the 1st of July and they're...

JOE HOCKEY: No, it ...

TONY JONES: ...they're now citing the figure of $1.8 billion...

JOE HOCKEY: Well...

TONY JONES: ...cut from the budget over the next four years. Is that true or not?

JOE HOCKEY: We are - we - we are giving the states an extra $9 billion in net terms over the next four years. They just got a $4 billion windfall from the GST, an increase of $4 billion in the GST. So what we've said is we are increasing hospitals, we're increasing schools funding and we're not touching pensions. We said that. After the next election, Australians have the right to make a decision about our promises in relation to the pensions and in relation to the ABC, I plead - plead guilty. I could not - I could not bring myself - the ABC hasn't had an efficiency dividend for more than a decade and I've asked them to take a 1% cut in the year ahead because, frankly, I couldn't ask every other area of government to take a cut and the ABC not to. I wasn't prepared to do that.

TONY JONES: When you say - when you say you're not cutting pensions, you're cutting pensioner concessions?

JOE HOCKEY: No, I don't accept that we are. What - what's happened is that pensioner concessions at a State level are funded by the Federal Government. So we don't pay Hoyts and Myers and everyone else to give pensioner concessions but they do, and what we've said to the states is, given you've got this $9 billion windfall over the next 4 four years, at a time when our revenue is actually falling - our revenue is falling. You're getting a $9 billion windfall. You've got to pick up the can, and they will, for the pensioner concessions on railway and so son.

TONY JONES: All right. Let's move on. We've got another question. It's from Elizabeth George. We'll come back to those pension issues and the health questions later. We've got another question from Elizabeth George.

WHY NOT CUT MORE?

ELIZABETH GEORGE: Mr Hockey, Hawke-Keating and Howard-Costello's first budget spending cuts accounted for three per cent of GDP. The Abbott-Hockey budget only represents a cut of 1% of GDP. Why didn't you cut more so we could go into surplus faster?

JOE HOCKEY: Well, we thought - we thought it was enough and - and the reason why, there was a massive increase in government expenditure by the previous government during the global financial crisis. There was about a 12% increase in government expenditure. Massive. The problem was they never got it back down to the pre-GFC levels and they did mislead the Australian people about a lot of programs that actually blew out, in cost, in five, six, seven years' time. So what we've done is we've said, right, we want the economy to grow as fast as it can over the next two to three years. If we cut hard, government expenditure over the next two to three years it will have a negative impact on the economy and we want this to be a growth budget. So we have taken some of the money that was day-to-day expenditure in the budget over the next two to three years, put it into $50 billion of infrastructure, which leverages up to $125 billion, to create the new jobs and, in the interim, we've put on the table structural changes that help to reduce the growth trajectory of government expenditure over the next 10 years, and that's where you end up. If you don't act now, you are going to end up with $667 billion of debt. If we act now, put in the structural savings, we will be able to cut that by $300 billion, which reduces our interest bill by $16 billion a year.

TONY JONES: Okay. All right. We've got a lot of questions to get through. The next one is from Rochelle Dobson.

FAMILIES & MEDICARE CO-PAYMENTS

ROCHELLE DOBSON: Mr Hockey I've taken the liberty of doing some maths. I have friends who are in their mid-20s. They're married with three young children. Let's say that all those three young children all become ill at the same time. Under the proposed $7 co-payment plan, it will cost them the following: $7 for a doctor's visit, times that by three, that's $21. Maybe the children have whooping cough that's determined by a blood test, another $21 which gives us a running total of $42. A follow-up trip to the doctors, another $21, which provides us with a running total of $63. Add the cost of medicine and I'm sure many here in the audience would agree that the cost of all this becomes colossal. Mr Hockey, how does a young family, who live paycheque to paycheque, afford this unplanned expense under the proposed plan?

JOE HOCKEY: Well, I recognise it is that it is - I recognise - I recognise it is hard. Can we talk - can we talk about that co-contribution for a moment? We thought very carefully about the growth trajectory over the medium term in the Medicare system. Bob Hawke, in 1991, tried to introduce a co-payment of $3.50, which is roughly just over $6 now. He legislated it, in fact, and did go down that path and then he was rolled by Paul Keating and it changed. But the bottom line was, when he introduced it he said Medicare would not be sustainable and at that time Australians visited the doctor on average four times a year.

TONY JONES: But can I just...

JOE HOCKEY: Now, doctors - now, Australians...

TONY JONES: Can I - can I interrupt your flow?

JOE HOCKEY: ...visit doctors, on average, 11 times a year. 11 times a year. Every dollar - every dollar that is contributed either goes to the doctor which is $2 or $5 goes into a medical research fund so it stays in the health system.

TONY JONES: Okay. It doesn't stay in the health system in terms of the budget, though, does it? I mean...

JOE HOCKEY: Yes, it does

TONY JONES: ...if this - if this was in response to a budget emergency, you wouldn't put it into a fund that might appreciate money over 20 years or more.

JOE HOCKEY: Well, no, I'll tell you why it is important to put it into medical research. Because if we are truly going to find the cures for cancer, mental health illnesses, Alzheimer's and so on, we've got to start investing now, and medical research is a great strength of Australia. We're very, very good at it. So every single dollar of savings, including the co-payment, goes into the health and medical research fund, that fund...

TONY JONES: Mr Hockey, the questioner wants to get back in there.

ROCHELLE DOBSON: Mr Hockey, I understand that medical research is important, but as you explained to the previous questioner, you come from a background that wasn't very privileged. How do you propose that people who live paycheque to paycheque and aren't earning very much money here in the Western Sydney area, how can they afford a total of $63 if - you know, that's a food budget. That's petrol for the week. How do you propose - it is not - it's not a planned - it's not planned. How - how can you plan that your children are sick?

JOE HOCKEY: No, I understand that. Well, there are a number - there are a number of concessions available. For example, for children under 16, after ten visits it's free going forward. Secondly, if there is a situation like that, the doctor has the discretion not to charge in an extraordinary circumstance. That's one of the reasons why of the $7 we're giving $2 to the doctors. So that is an extraordinary situation, all three children being hit at once. Short period of time, clearly - clearly, look...

TONY JONES: It sounds like the questioner is...

JOE HOCKEY: I actually do have three children. I know they can be hit at one time. But having said that, it can be an extraordinary situation that the doctor has the capacity to identify. Also, if any of them are on a chronic health plan, then they are not going to be charged the $7. So, as it stands, as you point out, if they go to get medication and they also have a PBS co-payment, which is something Labor introduced in 1990, and which has continued to help to make the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme sustainable.

TONY JONES: Just a very quick question on that: This co-payment, you've agreed, is effectively a tax on people going to the doctor. Is that a broken promise, since you said there would be no taxes without an election?

JOE HOCKEY: Well, I don't accept - it's - it's a payment. Well, you can call it a tax. You can call it whatever you want.

TONY JONES: You called it a tax. You admitted it was a tax.

JOE HOCKEY: No, I didn't. I didn't actually and - and the fact is, you know, it is a payment. It comes out of a pocket. It comes out of someone's pocket. A taxpayer's pocket but it...

TONY JONES: Effectively - effectively a tax.

JOE HOCKEY: Well, whatever you want, Tony. Given that...

TONY JONES: So - so...

JOE HOCKEY: Given of the $7, $2 goes to the doctor, I didn't know doctors, in that situation were receiving taxes, but your call. You want to call it a tax, you can call it anything you want. You can call it a rabbit. I don't mind. You can call it whatever you want but, it's a - it's tax.

TONY JONES: The question is, if it's a tax, as you seem to agree that is actually is, then is it a broken promise when you said you wouldn't raise any taxes without going to an election.

JOE HOCKEY: Well, we didn't say - we didn't say we wouldn't raise any taxes. That's absurd because we went to the last election promising to introduce a levy for the paid parental leave scheme. We said emphatically that taxes would be lower under us than they are under Labor and if you have a look at the budget papers, it actually shows that taxes under us are lower than if Labor was re-elected.

TONY JONES: Okay. We're going to go to our - we've got a few people with their hands up. We'll try to get to some of those but, in the meantime, quickly go to our next question, which is Maureen Gildard.

PENSIONERS & CO-PAYMENTS

MAUREEN GILDARD: Mr Hockey, many pensioners have worked all their lives and paid tax in order to receive the pension and Medicare. Would you please reconsider the Medicare co-payment for pensioners as, if they've got two or three visits a week and it's off pension week, that can be adding up to $21 and if they're only going to get $765 a fortnight, that's a hell of a lot of money and many of them won't be able to afford it. One elderly pensioner said to me that she would have to stay home and die because she couldn't afford her three visits a week to the doctors and for a blood test. And also you give the pensioners $6 a fortnight in a pharmaceutical allowance. Seeing you're putting up the cost of scripts to 80 cents for pensioners, will you please increase the pharmaceutical allowance for these people?

JOE HOCKEY: Look, I will have a look at that second issue that you raised. In relation to the first issue, after the three weeks that pensioner wouldn't have to pay because for a pensioner there is ten visits to the doctor a year where they have the co-payment and after that there is no co-payment. It's free. So it wouldn't be three visits a week every week of the year. It would be total of 10 visits a year that they would contribute and after that it would be free.

TONY JONES: Okay. I'm gonna go to another pensioner over here on the right-hand side. Ron Bloom. On the left-hand side, I should say. Ron Bloom. Where's Ron? Sorry, I beg your pardon, wrong side.

BEER AND CIGARETTES

RON BLOOM: You - you have stated compare the $7 co-payment to beer and cigarettes. As an aged pensioner I can't afford beer and cigarettes. I might give away an ice-cream, but that's my pleasure so I just wondered why you mention that. Even a $1 co-payment on Medicare is a slur on the Medicare system, as it was originally produced. Medicare has always been a free for all Australians and I think it should continue to be so. I don't think pensioners should have to pay that.

JOE HOCKEY: Is that a comment or? Well, Medicare - Medicare hasn't been free. Medicare is paid for by taxpayers, so it's not free. There are some Australians who do get free services from the doctor under the bulk-billing arrangements that exist, free bulk-billing, but many Australians actually pay to visit a doctor. Most Australians, if not all Australians, pay for their pharmaceuticals and certainly, at the end of the day, Australians do contribute with the Medicare levy towards Medicare, even though it goes nowhere near raising the amount of money that Medicare costs. I just say to you, sir, we want it to be sustainable in the future. We really do want Medicare to be sustainable in the future. A co-payment in this sort of situation does not undermine universal health care as suggested by others. The World Health Organisation recognised that you can have a co-contribution in relation to this. It's when the co-contribution prohibits someone from going to visit a doctor. That's why we have built-in safety nets including giving the doctors $2 of the $7 which allows them still to collect some money from the Government and use their discretion to ensure that someone who cannot afford to pay does not have to pay.

TONY JONES: Wouldn't the logic of that argument make much more sense if the money from the co-payment actually went back into the Medicare system? In other words, went back into the health budget?

JOE HOCKEY: But it does. But it actually does. If we do not find the cures, if we cannot help to find the cures for dementia and Alzheimer's and mental health and cancer, then the system is going to blow out in costs over time. But, having said that...

TONY JONES: Right. Let's go - well, let's go back to someone who has to face this issue now. Ron Bloom, you've heard the argument. Do you accept it?

RON BLOOM: Well, the beginning of my question was regarding the fact you were saying give away a couple of beers or give away a packet of cigarettes to pay for your doctor, where that doesn't really apply to people - pensioners generally, I would say. I don't think any of us can afford to smoke, it's too expensive.

JOE HOCKEY: Well, oh, no. Well, I - I understand that and in many cases that may well be the case. 80% of people over the age of 65 are on the pension. 80% of people over the age of 65 in Australia are on the pension and...

TONY JONES: Is that - is that - is that the number of people you've scared with this budget?

JOE HOCKEY: Tony - Tony, I will take that as a comment.

TONY JONES: Okay. We'll - we'll go to Thomas Jenkins. We've got a question from Thomas Jenkins on the same subject.

MIDDLE CLASS WELFARE

THOMAS JENKINS: Has increased welfare, particularly middle-class welfare in the '90s and 2000s, destroyed our aspirational culture and drive? Has it also conditioned Australians to a lifestyle of government dependency rather than self-reliance?

JOE HOCKEY: I hope not. I really hope not. The welfare - we're spending more on welfare now than we spend on health care at a federal level. I mean it's - we're spending more on welfare than we spend on the education of our children. We're spending more on welfare than we spend on the defence of the nation. It is by far our single biggest area of expenditure. Now, it's got to be a safety net, not a cargo net, and the danger is that people fall into a trap of relying on welfare, and we've all got to work together to make the welfare system sustainable but, particularly, and in some cases we're going to have to increase support, to ensure that those most vulnerable actually get the right help and support. So, everything we are doing is about trying to make the system more sustainable into the future. That is hard and it's not going to be easy and it's got to be a partnership, a compact between the community and the Government, whether it's Liberal or Labor. I mean, let's be fair dinkum, you know, that - that Labor took over 60,000 single mums off a pension and put them onto Newstart and we supported that, right, but it was a difficult measure. I don't want to be in a position where we're making harder decisions down the track, which are more punitive, because the welfare system is not sustainable.

TONY JONES: The questioner specifically asked about middle-class welfare and talked about the period of Howard Government. You talked about there being too much middle-class welfare effectively during that time. Now, on the issue of families, John Howard says your changes to tax benefit Part B are, in effect a tax increase. Another tax increase.

JOE HOCKEY: I don't think he actually said that.

TONY JONES: I think he did.

JOE HOCKEY: I don't think he did. I don't think he did. He didn't use those words but...

TONY JONES: He said, "These are"- he said, "These are not government handouts, as you've sort of implied, but actually tax concessions."

JOE HOCKEY: Oh, right. Okay. That's a little different. And the fact is that in relation to...

TONY JONES: He certainly counselled you not to do it

JOE HOCKEY: Well, you know, Tony, I mean I'm the one that has to put the numbers together and I love and admire John Howard. I was in his Cabinet and he is a very good and decent man, and he made decisions in 1996 with Peter Costello that set up the budget. He also had the benefit of rising terms of trade, falling unemployment, which he helped to create. We now have falling terms of trade and rising unemployment and we've got deficits as far as the eye can see. We have to fix the budget, otherwise nothing is sustainable in its current form, and we are determined to fix the budget, and I know that is hard but if we don't do it, the pain associated with fixing the budget is going to be far greater in the future than it is now.

TONY JONES: Let's go to our - thank you. Let's go to our next question. It's from Korey Gunnis..

DISABILITY

KOREY GUNNIS: Hi, Mr Hockey. I live with rheumatoid arthritis, cerebral palsy, osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, chronic asthma, hearing loss, an anxiety disorder and clinical depression regularly requiring 12 prescriptions per day, a hearing aid, regular GP and specialist visits, care at home and requiring regular scans and blood tests and very soon a major invasive surgery on my bladder. How do you expect me to live on a disability support pension and treat my conditions when I cannot find suitable work with the proposed heartless Medicare co-payments and other increased cost-of-living measures?

JOE HOCKEY: Well, from what you said, you wouldn't be hit by the so-called Medicare co-payment. You wouldn't be affected

KOREY GUNNIS: Initially I would.

JOE HOCKEY: No, you wouldn't, because you'd be on a care plan with your doctor. Obviously you've got a number of chronic diseases. In that situation you are not affected by the co-payment.

KOREY GUNNIS: I still to...

JOE HOCKEY: So it does not affect you. And in relation...

TONY JONES: I'm just going to go - I'm just going to go back to - Korey Gunnis seems to have a different opinion on that. So let's hear from him.

KOREY GUNNIS: Yeah. There'll be many other increases in cost of living. With fuel excise, that's gonna increase goods and services as well that will be passed on through - through the cost of living.

JOE HOCKEY: Well, and the abolition of the carbon tax and which is going to reduce household costs by $550 a year and tax cuts overall, which we're delivering without the carbon tax. Our overall tax take is actually less than it would have been, therefore the impact on cost of living is less than would have been the case if we weren't elected. In relation to the fuel excise, it is going to be one cent a litre - one cent a litre in the first instance. That money is - that's 40 - 60 cents - to fill a Camry, that'd be 60 cents extra in fuel excise. That money is going directly into road building, road upgrades around Australia, which are essential, which are essential. For example, to go from here to the city with our investment in new roads, we removed 43 sets of lights - of traffic lights between here, Penrith, and the city. So we have to invest. The amount of money we are raising from the increase in the fuel excise, which by law is going straight into the road funding program, the amount of money we raise is a fraction of what we're about to spend on roads.

TONY JONES: Briefly, do you accept that that's another tax increase that you didn't tell people about.

JOE HOCKEY: It is a tax. Sure, it's a tax increase.

TONY JONES: So when you said no new taxes, they get new taxes?

JOE HOCKEY: Well, it is a tax increase. Yes, it is a tax increase, and we - look, again, I say to you, our commitment was that taxes would be lower under us than under Labor and, as the budget papers show, they are lower as a result of our decisions than they were under Labor.

TONY JONES: I mean people are also taking the Prime Minister at his word on some of the things he said about this.

JOE HOCKEY: Yeah.

TONY JONES: And he was very specific saying no new taxes without going to an election.

JOE HOCKEY: Righto. Well, Tony, we're arguing the politics of it and I accept where you're coming from.

TONY JONES: No, we're arguing

JOE HOCKEY: But the bottom line is...

TONY JONES: We're arguing what people said who are now in power.

JOE HOCKEY: Okay. Well, okay. If we're arguing what people said, gee-whiz, I wish the other mob had told us how bad the budget was. I really do.

TONY JONES: Okay. All right. We've got another question. It's on a similar subject. It's from Kerry Rogers.

MEDICARE CO-PAYMENTS

KERRY RODGERS: Mr Hockey, I'm a registered nurse who lives and works in the area. You've managed to achieve something that I didn't think ever was going to be possible. You've managed to galvanise every sector of the health care sector against your co-payment. The AMA, the Doctors Reform Society, the ANMF, medical and nursing leaders, health economists are all opposed to your co-payment. This affects those with chronic and complex care needs the most and it affects those with the least ability to pay. It's unfair in the extreme. These people will delay presenting for treatment to their GPs because they can't afford the co-payment. They will end up in our emergency departments and may then need to be admitted to our hospitals, which is a much higher cost to the entire system, let alone to the cost to those individuals physically and emotionally. This is absolute madness. This attack on Medicare and universal health care is driven by Liberal ideology, not necessity. How can you justify a $7 co-payment when we're only spending 9% of GDP on our health care system, less than half of the USA?

JOE HOCKEY: Well, ma'am, I understand what you're saying and I respect where you're coming from. Do you think the United States has a better health system than Australia?

KERRY RODGERS: No.

JOE HOCKEY: Okay. Well, they're spending twice...

KERRY RODGERS: That's where you're driving us.

JOE HOCKEY: They're spending twice the amount than we're spending and they haven't got a better system and I share that view with you. But the challenge is, ma'am, how do we - how do we make sure that the health system we have gets better and better over time? That's the question we face and, at the end of the day, someone has to pay for it. It's always the taxpayers. Someone has to pay for it. Now, what we have to do is when we have projects like this or initiatives like this, we have to ensure that those most vulnerable and those most exposed have an appropriate safety net and that is what we've actually done by having, of the $7, again, $2 going to the doctors, so that they can then determine if someone is in real trouble and they will obviously not charge. Secondly, it's only 10 visits a year for anyone under the age of 16 or a concession card holder which is millions of Australians and, thirdly, if you have a chronic disease or some serious affliction that is being managed by the doctor, you will not have to pay the co-payment.

TONY JONES: I'll quickly go back to our questioner, who is on her feet.

KERRY RODGERS: I say to you that our healthcare system in one of the best in the world. We have been judged by Bloomberg as being the seventh most efficient health care system in the world. We have a world-class health care system.

JOE HOCKEY: Yep.

KERRY RODGERS: You are trying to destroy that system.

JOE HOCKEY: I don't accept that.

KERRY RODGERS: People will not be able to pay. Ten visits a year at $7 a co-payment is far too much for people to pay. I don't think - you've heard a number of people in the audience tonight tell you that they cannot afford, in a fortnight - that's the difference between someone putting bread and milk on the table for their children or going to the doctor. These are the choices your government is forcing people into.

TONY JONES: Okay. We're going to take that as a comment because we've got so many other questions to go to. We've got a question from Lynne Egan.

RICH VERSUS POOR

LYNNE EGAN: Mr Hockey, I read in today's Sydney Morning Herald that you withheld a table from the budget called "Detailed Family Outcomes." Is this a deliberate attempt to hide the fact that high-income earners are scarcely touched but low-income earners can possibly lose 10% of their income? Do you really care for the low-income earners or just your mates at the high end of town?

TONY JONES: Can you take the question of whether those tables were in the budget or not perhaps?

JOE HOCKEY: Well, we published a number of tables in the budget. I would urge you not to believe everything you read in the Sydney Morning Herald and for good reason.

TONY JONES: So did the budget detail in tables...

JOE HOCKEY: Yeah. We actually had tables that showed...

TONY JONES: ...impact on individual families at certain income levels of your budget measures?

JOE HOCKEY: No, we - we outlined the impact of our decisions in some of the cameos. We also had tables at the back of the presentation in relation to the welfare area that showed, for example, that someone who has an income of $50,000 a year, who has two children under the age of six will, in three years' time, receive over $17,000 from the Australian Government, from the taxpayers of Australia, tax-free, to help them in the raising of those children. So we had those tables, which illustrated what people are getting and what they will get into the future.

TONY JONES: I'm going to go back to our questioner. She is still on her feet.

LYNNE EGAN: I want to know if they were the can Detailed Family Outcomes that I believe have been in the budget since 2005?

JOE HOCKEY: Well, I...

LYNNE EGAN: And why weren't they there?

JOE HOCKEY: There have been various tables but we've got nothing to hide. If - if you have a different set of tables, ma'am, please present them. We would be happy to have a look at them.

TONY JONES: Okay. We've got quite a few people with their hands up, actually. I'll just go - up the back of the audience there, there are a number of people with their hands up. Quickly go to one of those people. Go ahead. Stand up, please.

FROM THE FLOOR

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi. My question is you say that there is going to be $20 - sorry, a substantial amount of money from the Medicare put back into research. How do you expect that to be utilised if you are making university unaffordable for people to study such things?

JOE HOCKEY: Well, there is two issues there. The first is every dollar of savings in health over the next 6 years goes into the national - into the Medical Research Future Fund. That fund will build up to $20 billion in six years. That will be the biggest medical research endowment fund in the world. That will start funding new medical research in two years' time, from now, two years' time, new medical research. Over the next six years, in six years' time, it will double the amount of money Australia spends on medical research forever. And if we do that, because research has long lag times, and it needs a lot of predictable funding, if we do that, we can get the clinical trials for the sorts of things that are going to deliver the cures that are making - are going to make the health system more sustainable in the future.

TONY JONES: Okay. All right. You've made that point. You've made that point earlier.

JOE HOCKEY: Well, it was a good point, Tony, and I...

TONY JONES: Okay. But you've made it.

JOE HOCKEY: Just before I finish, there was a second questions.

TONY JONES: No. No. We'll come back to that.

JOE HOCKEY: Okay. Okay.

TONY JONES: Because we've got specific questions on that subject as well.

JOE HOCKEY: Yeah. Yeah.

TONY JONES: So you're watching a edition of Q&A, where Joe Hockey faces your questions. Our next question comes from Hannah Kilgore.

PUBLIC SERVICE CUTS

HANNAH KILGORE: Hi, Minister.

JOE HOCKEY: Hi, Hannah.

HANNAH KILGORE: I'm a 26-year-old federal public servant working for the Department of Industry. I have a university degree and I've been a responsible and hard-working employee and taxpayer for the past five years while I pay back my HECS. Your Government has now committed to sacking 16,000 public servants and you've also decided that, should I get sacked, I will be ineligible for the next six months to receive any Newstart allowance or any kind of Government assistance, as I'm under the age of 30. If I do lose my job, which is likely, who will help me pay my mortgage? How do you expect young people to get a decent start in life with these kind of policies?

JOE HOCKEY: Well, there are a number of issues there. In relation to the public service, just before the previous government left, they put in place an efficiency dividend in the public service that was going to cost 14,000 jobs but they failed to fund that redundancy. That's one of the legacy items they left. And, for example, my own Department of Treasury is going from a peak number of about 1,100 and it's going to around 630 under the plans that were left behind by Chris Bowen and Wayne Swan. So that was already put in place. In relation to the extra 2,000 to 2,500 public servants - federal public servants, we've reduced the number of programs and also closed down the number of boards and agencies that we have. When we got in, we didn't - no one could tell us how many boards or how many agencies the Federal Government had, and we thought it was 700 and it turned out to be a thousand. And we've already abolished 70, which is - obviously if you're not doing that and you're closing down programs, then you reduce the size of your workforce.

TONY JONES: Okay. Can I get you - I'm sorry, we are trying to get through a lot of questions.

JOE HOCKEY: I know but there was three questions in that.

TONY JONES: Can I get - yes, so can I get you to come to what she finished with, which is how on earth - well, how she survives living without the dole if she loses her job for six months?

TONY JONES: Well, that's not - there's a couple of assumptions that are wrong there. Firstly, you don't automatically get the dole at any rate because your redundancy comes into play. So now, under existing rules, you cannot claim the dole whilst your redundancy from your previous employer comes into play, okay, and that's no different. If you are under the age of 30, you are credited with a year - from the six months you are credited with a year for every year that you've worked. So if you've worked four years, it means you're only one month without Newstart in that period. In that period we're actually going to have work programs in terms of helping you to rebuild your CV, and job placement programs through the job network in that month's time. So there are a range of different programs in place.

TONY JONES: Right. Our next question, a different subject, from Joshua Crew.

UNI FEES

JOSHUA CREW: Hello, Mr Hockey.

JOE HOCKEY: Hi, Joshua.

JOSHUA CREW: I'd just like to know, isn't it true that you benefitted from a free university education thanks to a Whitlam Labor Government, so how do you reconcile your government's policy to abolish university fee caps, potentially making the cost of an education beyond the reach of an ordinary Australian against the free education you received? And do you think it's fair to deny the ordinary Australian the opportunities you were afforded thanks to another government at another time?

JOE HOCKEY: I really wish it could be free. I really wish it could be free. But it was, in fact, the Hawke Government that introduced university fees and it was various governments over time that have increased the university fees. It was the Hawke Government that introduced HECS, which is the loan scheme. So when I started paying university fees it was an upfront payment, and then they introduced a concessional loan scheme and the concessional loan scheme that now applies ensures that no student, and the one that applied under Labor applies under us, no student pays a dollar upfront. They only start to repay the concessional loan when they earn more than $50,000 a year. So getting access to university and the affordability of the degree has nothing to do - has nothing to do with the case there.

TONY JONES: And what's happening in your budget to change when interest begins to be charged on the loan?

JOE HOCKEY: Well, it still starts - you start repaying the loan when you earn more than $50,000.

TONY JONES: When do you start accruing interest?

JOE HOCKEY: And the interest - the interest - no, the issue is that the interest is going to be charged at the ten-year government bond rate, which is still much less than anyone can borrow at a bank, which is important, and it never gets above 6%, and they're the initiatives that we've introduced.

TONY JONES: So just very briefly, the head of the group of eight elite universities says your fee deregulation, which he supports, will lead to average university fees rising by 30%. Do you accept that?

JOE HOCKEY: Well, I haven't seen that comment, but what I do say is a number of things that we've put in place are going to make it more accessible. For example, we are extending those concessional...

TONY JONES: But more expensive.

JOE HOCKEY: Let me finish. Let me...

TONY JONES: More expensive was the question.

JOE HOCKEY: Just let - no. Well, I'm giving you the answer. For example, we are extending the concessional loan scheme, for the very first time, to diplomas, to sub-bachelor degrees, to improve the accessibility right across the community. We expect there will be an extra 80,000 people go and study as a result of that initiative. Now, and I think that is hugely important. We are also extending the loan scheme effectively to apprentices with trade support loans, $20,000 loans for apprentices and if they complete their four year apprenticeship, we take $4,000 off the loan. So what we're able to, do - and, by the way, if there are increases in the overall cost of university fees, and that may well be the case, right, if that's the case, we are taking...

TONY JONES: 30% - 30% wouldn't...

JOE HOCKEY: Well, I - I...

TONY JONES: ...wouldn't surprise you?

JOE HOCKEY: Yes, it would surprise me, actually, but having said that, of the money the universities - the additional money the universities make, one in $5 is actually going to go into the biggest low income scholarship program in Australian history. So we give even greater access to people on lower incomes than they've previously had, as well as opening up the entire education system to the same concessional loans that university students get.

TONY JONES: Okay, we've got another question from - thank you. It's from Aidan Johnstone.

TASMANIAN YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

AIDAN JOHNSTONE: Hey there, Joe. I'm here from Hobart today. So, as a young Tasmanian I have a number of friends who have completed their university degree and apprenticeships and have gone on to join the workforce, only to lose their jobs as the economy has dried up. So, in Tasmania, the Treasury estimates that there are roughly 19,100 job seekers and there are only about 500 jobs in total advertised each week across newspapers and on the internet. Given this large discrepancy between the amount of jobs available and the number of job seekers, I'd like to know what evidence there is that cutting off the safety net for young Australians will actually lead to a significant decrease in unemployment, and won't lead to an increase in crime, homelessness, suicide and poverty amongst young Australians?

JOE HOCKEY: There was a few - few questions there. Can I go through that or...

TONY JONES: If you could keep it fairly brief, because we've got quite a few questions still to go and we're running out of time.

JOE HOCKEY: Right. Well, firstly you hit the nail on the head. We've got to create more jobs and governments don't employ people per se. The private sector employs people. So what we've got to do is lift the economy - lift the economy so that the new jobs are created, right? That's a starting point and one of the things we're doing, for example, in Tasmania, is we're spending a lot of money on infrastructure and we're spending a lot of money on new initiatives that are going to help to create those jobs.

AIDAN JOHNSTONE: So, are you saying that it's actually not their fault that they don't have a job at the moment and you're still cutting their employment benefits anyway?

JOE HOCKEY: Well, no, and I'd say the second - the second point is this: if you're under the age of 30, we need you to earn or learn, right? And in order to earn - in order to earn...

AIDAN JOHNSTONE: That's - that's all well and good.

JOE HOCKEY: Okay.

AIDAN JOHNSTONE: But there are 18,000 people who are looking for work outside of the advertised jobs. What are they supposed to do?

JOE HOCKEY: As I said, if you're under the age of 30, we need you to earn or learn. Now, what we're going to do, if you can just hear me out...

AIDAN JOHNSTONE: Sorry, I already established that these people have gone through education and they've gotten skills which would lead to jobs that are ordinarily there. It just happens that it is a downturn at the moment so the jobs aren't available. So they've already earnt. I mean, sorry, they've already learnt and they've already earnt.

JOE HOCKEY: So you're saying every young unemployed person in Tasmania is already skilled up?

AIDAN JOHNSTONE: That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying there are people like that who do have the skills and have just been unfortunate and they're being punished by this change to the rules.

JOE HOCKEY: Well, I don't accept that. I don't accept that and the reason why, if I can explain the policy, if you are under the age of 25, instead of getting Newstart, you are going to get Youth Allowance and we're going to say to you that we will pay - we will pay - taxpayers will pay for you to undertake a course. Now, that is hugely important and, for the first time, concessional loans, if you're undertaking a TAFE course, a diploma, but if you are working, as in studying, then you will either qualify for Youth Allowance for studying, or - or you will be able to claim an exemption in relation to the rules on Newstart, because the bottom line is there are rules that ensure that someone under the age of 30 is not going to be treated punitively if they are making an effort to go to work or study. Now, for example, or if they're a carer, or if they're a parent and if you are under 30 and you have worked, as I said before, you get one month's credit for every - for every year that you had worked.

TONY JONES: Okay. All right. I'm going to cut it off there. We've got a question on the politics of the budget. It's from, if you could you please stand up, Tashinga Musingarabwe.

GST AND CUTS TO STATES

TASHINGA MUSINGARABWE: Good evening Treasurer. With $80 billion said to be cut off from health and education in the states and territories, are you starving the state so that you can effectively raise the GST and deflect blame from your Government?

JOE HOCKEY: No.

TONY JONES: Which is, of course, the accusation of the states. That's exactly what they're saying.

JOE HOCKEY: Of course. Well, they will. I mean, these sorts of things happen all the time.

TONY JONES: Well, how are they going - how are they - the question that they're asking is how are we going to replace the missing $80 billion?

JOE HOCKEY: Well, I would argue that the $80 billion was never funded at any rate and, why, just to clarify what the $80 billion is, Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd signed deals with the states and they literally threw money at the states in relation to hospitals and schools. In the case of Gonski, they pulled - the previous government pulled $1.2 billion out just before the election. So he there was no Gonski money at all for Queensland, Western Australia or the Northern Territory. So after the election we said, look, it's unfair. We committed to four years of Gonski. We're putting an extra $1.2 billion in, which actually means we've put more money into Gonski than Labor ever did.

TONY JONES: I'm just going to...

JOE HOCKEY: And then the second point...

TONY JONES: I'm going to go to - let me go to what the questioner is asking, though, and that is whether the states will end up...

JOE HOCKEY: Well...

TONY JONES: ...being forced into a position where they have to agitate to raise the GST. That's what everyone wants to know?

JOE HOCKEY: Well - well, that is a matter for them because they receive every dollar from the GST. They receive every dollar from the GST. But what happens is, at the moment, the states run the hospitals. The states run the schools. We don't run one hospital. We don't run one school. Well, we run one hospital in Tasmania, but we don't run the system. And all we're doing is we're going back to the same taxpayer for additional money. We don't run them but we're taxing them and then giving it straight to the states. So the fundamental question is if you run an area of government, shouldn't you raise the money to pay for that area of government?

TONY JONES: Okay. I'm, so...

JOE HOCKEY: And having said that...

TONY JONES: All right. Yes.

JOE HOCKEY: ...having said that, we are continuing to increase, above inflation, funding for hospitals and schools as far as you can see. So we continue to increase the funding for schools and hospitals, often even stronger base than what the previous Labor Government was offering.

TONY JONES: Well, not according to the states, who say they they're going to be down by more than a billion dollars starting from July - July 1.

JOE HOCKEY: Well, I - well, that's just not right. As I said...

TONY JONES: Well, that is their - that is their argument.

JOE HOCKEY: Well.

TONY JONES: Can I just say ask you one quick question, one quick follow-up, and that is: why was such a fundamental shift in state-federal relations not forecast or even talked about in your budget speech?

JOE HOCKEY: Oh. In my budget speech?

TONY JONES: Yeah.

JOE HOCKEY: Well, I wish I had an hour to give the budget speech, but I didn't.

TONY JONES: That is the thing that's causing you most grief and you didn't even mention it in the budget speech.

JOE HOCKEY: Do you think so? I'm not sure that it is the thing giving us the most grief. I think - I think there's a few other things in the community. But, look, this is something that we - we have to resolve. Colin Barnett was right. This is not an emergency. We can sit down and work this through. We have a process that we've put in place with a review of the Federation and a review of taxation arrangements and whatever comes out of it we are taking to the Australian people at the next election

TONY JONES: Okay. I'm going to move on from that issue. We've got a question from Len Joyce. Yep, go ahead, Len.

LABOR'S DEBT

LEN JOYCE: Mr - sorry. I wasn't expecting it so quick. The Australian economy has been ruined over the last five years - five or six years - by profligacy - I said that right - leaving us with $1 billion interest bill a month. Now, the continual stupidity of the Opposition parties in Parliament and what they are saying and what they are going to stop, what option can you take? We don't want to resort to hope or divine intervention. What can we do to get through that? How are you going to face that?

TONY JONES: You mean, how are you going to face...

LEN JOYCE: The Opposition.

TONY JONES: ... opposition in the Senate?

LEN JOYCE: Yep. Yep.

TONY JONES: All right. Go ahead.

JOE HOCKEY: Well, I think we've got to win the political argument. That's the starting point. Now, if you're asking me - I mean, I'm - I am frustrated at the behaviour of the Opposition. I suppose they would say they are frustrated at us when we were in Opposition. But Labor is now opposing $5 billion of the savings and cuts that they took to the last election. They're now opposing and blocking in the Senate $5 billion of their own cuts. $15 billion...

TONY JONES: It's not only - not only - not only Labor, is it, that is going to be blocking a lot of these initiatives.

JOE HOCKEY: Well, that's true. $15 billion dollars of initiatives...

TONY JONES: Labor, the Greens and Clive Palmer.

TONY JONES: ...that we were upfront with the Australian people about before the last election to reduce government expenditure, like getting rid of the School Kids Bonus, which is hard, but we were upfront. Tony Abbott said in the Parliament we've got to get rid of this because it's funded by the mining tax. We can't afford it. Labor is opposing that. Labor have now said they're opposing $18.5 billion of new saving initiatives. All it does is make the job much harder in the future and the pain much greater in the future.

TONY JONES: So quick follow-up and then we'll move onto other things. Are you prepared, if necessary, to go to a double dissolution to break any deadlock?

JOE HOCKEY: We don't - we don't want to - we don't want to go to a double dissolution. We've been so - we've only just been elected. We haven't been in 12 months.

TONY JONES: Yeah. You say you don't want to but...

JOE HOCKEY: What we want to do...

TONY JONES: ...but if it came to the crunch...

JOE HOCKEY: Well, we've got to prosecute - yeah.

TONY JONES: ...to save your initiatives, would you do it?

JOE HOCKEY: We've...

TONY JONES: Are you prepared? Do you have that sort of political courage?

JOE HOCKEY: You know, Tony - you know, I don't think there is a shortage of political courage. I think what we're doing is right for the country and we're going to keep prosecuting the argument.

TONY JONES: So absolutely - absolutely no to a double dissolution?

JOE HOCKEY: I - we are going to keep prosecuting the policy that is in the best interests of the country. We are going to keep doing that.

TONY JONES: Okay. Let's go to our next question. It's from Liam Crothers.

RETIREMENT AGE

LIAM CROTHERS: I'm a tradesman and I work in a physically demanding job and I have done since I left school at 16. I think I will struggle to work in my job until I'm 70. People in other careers, such as nursing, the police force and firemen, may find themselves in the same position. These people need to be retrained to find less physical work. Does the Government have strategies to help these people retain and find a new job and, if they find a job, it is safe to assume that they will have to start at the bottom. What support will the Government supply to these people to continue to pay their bills and, also, are there further plans to increase the age that we can access our super?

JOE HOCKEY: Well, Liam, there's a few issues there. Firstly, you're right. When you're in a physically demanding industry, whatever it is, be it a plumber or a bricklayer, in some cases farmers, although I know a number of farmers that keep working until they're in their 70s and 80s, but the impact on your body is great and the fact that we are living longer means that we're going to have a number of careers during our lifetime and, inevitably, what we've got to do is change the mindset of business towards people over a certain age. I mean, your life doesn't end when you turn 50 and you certainly don't have to retire when you turn 65 or 70. Because if you choose to work, we want you to have the opportunity to work. One of the programs that we announced in the budget is that we are going to give business a $10,000 incentive to employ someone over the age of 50, right, who has been on Newstart or disability support pension for six months and that $10,000 is staggered over two years. So they've got to employ them for two years and that $10,000 can be used by the business to help them to retrain people. Now, that's hugely important. Help to retrain and re-skill people, but there is an ingrained attitude in business that if you're over a certain age you're not quite as vigorous or innovative as, perhaps, someone younger. That's dead wrong and what we've got to do is change business attitudes as well.

TONY JONES: Liam was asking how - well, go ahead. You can go back to it.

LIAM CROTHERS: Yeah, I'm...

TONY JONES: But I think he was asking you about how on earth people can work until they're 70.

LIAM CROTHERS: Yeah, I'm aware of that policy and I think it's a good policy but that goes to the employer. My question is about the employee. How are we supposed to get through, get retrained? If I have a mortgage and kids and I start a new career at the bottom. How am I supposed to maintain my lifestyle with, as in paying a mortgage and bills and looking after the children, when my wage will essentially be cut?

JOE HOCKEY: But you're right and that has been an age-old problem. There's nothing new about that problem. I mean builders, labourers, brickies have had bodies break down in their...

LIAM CROTHERS: Yeah, but you're increasing - you're increasing the pension age to 70.

JOE HOCKEY: Well, it's...

LIAM CROTHERS: So it will be a bigger problem.

JOE HOCKEY: Well, hang on a sec. It's going to 70 in 21 years' time.

LIAM CROTHERS: Yeah, it's going to affect me.

JOE HOCKEY: Right. Okay. And when - and when the previous Government increased it to 67, in 2023 it is going to affect you, too, sir.

LIAM CROTHERS: But for them as well. Yeah, I'd ask the same question of them as well.

JOE HOCKEY: It's going to affect you too. So...

TONY JONES: Is that - can I just - can I just ask the question, the obvious question. Is that sort of thing going to change the way you vote?

LIAM CROTHERS: Yes, and no. I will always probably vote along Labor lines but, because I think they - they look after the labour workers. I - that's what I think, but I wasn't happy when Kevin Rudd increased the age either. So that's a question to both parties, regardless of who is in charge.

JOE HOCKEY: Yeah.

LIAM CROTHERS: It is a problem for both parties.

JOE HOCKEY: Sure, sure. Well, Liam, it's 65 at the moment. It's going to 67 and superannuation obviously is kicking in. So we've got massive amount of private sector superannuation, which is increasing.

LIAM CROTHERS: Yeah.

JOE HOCKEY: Increasing, right.

TONY JONES: Which Paul Keating says, incidentally, is not going to last for these long-lived people. It is going to run out when people are in their 80s.

JOE HOCKEY: That may - that may well be a legitimate point. That may well be a legitimate point and retirement savings is a big issue that I think we need to have a national conversation about. But...

TONY JONES: So which brings you to his other question, which was: are you thinking of changing the age at which you can access super?

JOE HOCKEY: Well, not at this particular point in time and I'd say that...

TONY JONES: So, at what particular point in time because everyone would like to know that?

JOE HOCKEY: We'll have more to say about retirement incomes further down the track, right?

TONY JONES: In this term?

JOE HOCKEY: Well, I suspect it will be in this term because I think what we're trying to do is give people a long lead time right? A long lead time. So to go from 67 in 2023, which Labor introduced, to 70 is a continuation of the trajectory that the previous government put in.

TONY JONES: So it's on the cards that we could see, in this term, a change to the year, the age in which you can access super?

JOE HOCKEY: Well, I think it's something that we need to have a proper process to discuss, with all the affected stakeholders, particularly people like Liam.

TONY JONES: But it sounds like it's on your mind. It is on your mind?

JOE HOCKEY: It is on my mind and it's on Tony Abbott's mind. We're thinking about how we're going to make sure that the quality of life for Australians into the future is sustainable.

TONY JONES: Okay. Let's go to our next question. It's from Stephen Green.

POLITICIAN'S PERKS

STEPHEN GREEN: Evening, Joe.

JOE HOCKEY: Evening, sir.

STEPHEN GREEN: My question is: how our parliamentarians sharing the heavy lifting in this budget when the single - when a single pensioner, who you've taken a concessional payment away from which represents a 4% drop in the pension and they also can't get a pension until they're between 65 and 70, depending on their - when they were born, how does that compare to, say, someone like Liberal MP Wyatt Roy, who only his wage freezed for 12 months and, at the end of this term, he can retire on a pension indexed for life?

JOE HOCKEY: Well, there is no 4% cut in pensions. So I'm sorry but you're wrong. There is no cut in pensions.

STEPHEN GREEN: No, that concession - that concession supplement is $867.

JOE HOCKEY: No, the pensioner concession supplement stays. It is not being changed at all that. Is a load of codswallop. The pensioner concession payment stays and the pensioners still get the energy supplement as well. So that's misinformation that is out there. In relation to Wyatt Roy, he doesn't qualify for any pension at the end of this term at all. He is going to have to be 65 and, given he is the youngest member of parliament, that's many years away. Or 70, whatever the case might be at the retirement age. In relation to politicians, the Prime Minister and I...

TONY JONES: And what would - what would roughly would be (indistinct)...

JOE HOCKEY: Sorry, the Prime Minister and I took the decision, right, that we had to freeze politicians' salary increase this year. We did that. So that's a wage freeze which is an actual freeze in perpetuity. Sorry, it means the base is lower forever in a politician's salary. We pay the extra 2% tax, over $180,000 and the gold card is gone. The gold card is gone.

STEPHEN GREEN: So are you saying the parliamentarians - are you saying...

JOE HOCKEY: So, you know, we are not holding ourselves up as saints, I can promise you that, but we are making a contribution.

TONY JONES: Okay. Sorry, you want to get back in. Go ahead.

STEPHEN GREEN: Are you saying that there is no parliamentarians who have left Parliament in the last five years who are now on a pension for the rest of their lives fully indexed?

JOE HOCKEY: Well, there may be but Wyatt Roy (indistinct)...

STEPHEN GREEN: Who are less than 65 years?

JOE HOCKEY: They may be but that was an old scheme that was contributed to by those members of Parliament and public servants and others. So it's a contribution that is made at various times and it is a defined benefit scheme under certain rules. Now, just as I wouldn't retrospectively change whatever, you know, scheme you may be in, it was closed. The scheme was closed and new members, like Wyatt Roy and Fiona Scott here in Penrith and others, have the same scheme as everyone else in the community.

TONY JONES: okay. We've got time for one last question, I'm sorry to say. We have got so many people with their hands up. But it's from Nicole Hopper.

YOUNG VOTER

NICOLE HOPPER: I will be a first-time voter at the next election. I am concerned that the cost of my university degree will increase substantially and I'm also concerned about disadvantaged people in Australia and overseas following welfare cuts and reduced overseas aid. How could I possibly vote for the Liberal Party, when none of these issues were flagged before the election?

JOE HOCKEY: Fiona, did you say? Is it Fiona? Yeah. Well, firstly we did actually...

TONY JONES: Nicole.

JOE HOCKEY: Nicole. Sorry. I'm sorry. We did announce that we were going to cut foreign aid before the election. We actually did.

TONY JONES: But not by how much?

JOE HOCKEY: Well, we actually did have a number on it. We've had to increase that. We've increased it. And why? Because, as Bob Carr said, and this will be the only time I quote Bob Carr, as Bob Carr said, you can't borrow money to give it away in foreign aid. And that's exactly what's happening at the moment. We can't do that. And in relation to universities, I mean, you obviously go to a private school and I assume your parents pay your school fees, and the fact is, if you go to university and let's - good luck to you if you do, the good news is you do not have to pay a dollar to attend university, given that you're getting a concessional loan from the Australian taxpayers. It's only when you start to earn more than $50,000 a year, as exists at the moment - as exists at the moment - that's when you start to repay the loan. On average, over your life, because you do go to university, you will earn around a million dollars more than someone that hasn't had the chance to go to university and I think that's a pretty good return on investment.

TONY JONES: Let's quickly go and find out, okay, has the Treasurer changed your mind?

NICOLE HOPPER: What about the lower income people who can't afford the university?

JOE HOCKEY: Well, if you are getting a concessional loan, it doesn't matter whether you're higher income or lower income. You have the same equality of opportunity and the same outcome, and, by the way, for the first time, as I said, one in every five dollars a university gets from the changes is going to go to a Commonwealth scholarship scheme for lower-income Australians. That doesn't exist at the moment. And we're actually going to provide those scholarships to help people from the most disadvantaged backgrounds afford university while they're there. So get to starting base and after that it's up to them. We'll give them all the support we can.

TONY JONES: Okay. I'm sorry to all of those people who have their hands up, to the many, many hundreds of people who sent us questions and didn't get a chance to ask them, that is all we have time for. Please thanks tonight's special guest: the Treasurer Joe Hockey. Thank you, and this wonderful audience here at Penrith Panthers, please give yourselves a round of applause. Thank you. Thank you very much. Briefly, the Sydney Writers' Festival is about to begin. Next Monday. Q&A will put politics aside to consider the finer things in life. With award winning novelist: Richard Flanagan; Archibald Prize winning painter, Tim Storer; singer and memoir author Kate Ceberano; thriller writer Tara Moss, who has just published her own confronting personal story; and comedian and author Jean Kitson. Until next week's Q&A, goodnight.