The question Malcolm Turnbull really didn’t want to answer

MALCOLM Turnbull wants an economy that is agile and strong but the PM couldn’t back away fast enough from answering one direct question.

PM Malcolm Turnbull just couldn’t seem to answer one simple question. Picture Kym Smith

MALCOLM Turnbull wants Australia’s economy to be agile and strong but the Prime Minister couldn’t back away fast enough from answering one simple question.

The Budget released on Tuesday included a plan to reduce the company tax rate down to 25 per cent over 10 years.

The government has been spruiking the benefits to the economy, saying it will encourage businesses to invest and expand, creating more jobs and lifting economic growth by just over one per cent in the long term.

But when Sky News political editor David Speers interviewed the PM this morning he was hoping to get one question answered: “What is it going to cost over 10 years?”

It’s a simple enough inquiry, but one that Mr Turnbull went to great lengths to sidestep.

“Treasury has not identified the dollar cost of that particular item - what it has done is set out a medium term outlook which takes account of the company tax cut and all the other tax arrangements,” Mr Turnbull said.

But that didn’t stop Speers, who is a Walkley award winning journalist. He asked the most obvious question: “Why not?”.

The answer involved Mr Turnbull going into a long explanation about the “medium term outlook”, which forecasts how the Budget will look in the next 10 years. Take note of the phrase “medium term outlook”, it’s mentioned a lot.

“(It) shows the budget returning to balance,” Mr Turnbull noted.

But what about the cost of the cut to company tax, Speers asked: “Surely you’ve modelled this?”, pushing for a dollar amount.

Well “the Treasury has modelled ...” Mr Turnbull started saying, leaving the answer hanging and clearly not wanting to reveal the figure.

“So what’s it going to cost?” Speers pushed again.

Mr Turnbull went back to his line: “You can see the outcome ... in the Budget papers.”

Unfortunately for him, Speers had obviously read the Budget papers and there was no lack of confidence when he said: “I can’t see ... what the 10 year figure is.”

“You can see it,” Mr Turnbull insisted, even picking up one of the Budget papers sitting nearby and leafing through it. The Budget outcome was on page 3-11 of Budget Paper 1, he said.

Speers is not put off by the PM’s mention of page numbers: “What’s the cost though of this plan?” he asks again.

The “medium term outlook” answer seemed to be working so well for him, Mr Turnbull rolled it out again. Again he said it showed the Budget returning to balance.

Speers decided to take the Prime Minister’s lead in repeating himself: “So what is it?” he asked. “I don’t understand what the cost is? What’s it going to cost taxpayers to cut the company tax rate?” Could he be any clearer?

Then it was Mr Turnbull’s turn.

Turnbull coy on cost of company tax cut https://t.co/mxB929CJka pic.twitter.com/d7cfbzMT07

— Sky News Australia (@SkyNewsAust) May 5, 2016

Okay, “let’s be clear” Mr Turnbull began. Sounds promising — but only if you still don’t know “what the Treasury does”.

“They make assumptions going out for 10 years ... that’s clearly affordable,” Mr Turnbull said again. Got it yet?

Uh oh. Speers was quick to pounce on that one.

“But how do we know it’s affordable?” he hit back. “How much does it cost?”

Then the clincher: “It’s a pretty simple question, Prime Minister.”

Hmmm how much longer can this go on for?

Mr Turnbull tried to wrap it up with: “What you’re asking is for me to unpick every single line item of those assumptions,” he said of the “medium term outcome”. By now, we all know what that is.

But Speers was relentless, saying: “I’m just asking what the overall cost is. This is not a difficult question.”

Finally Mr Turnbull reached for the failsafe answer he probably should have pulled out much earlier: “I’m not going to add to the detail that is in the Budget papers.”

To which Speers asked: “Then why put a 10-year plan in the Budget papers? Why not just put the four-year plan?” Touche.

There’s obviously a figure out there.

Speers noted: “(Deloitte Access Economics director) Chris Richardson reckons it’s around $55 billion.”

“He may well be right,” Mr Turnbull said, adding that the dollar values of the future would probably change.

“What I’m saying is,” Mr Turnbull adds, “We know what it will cost over the forward estimates, which is in excess of $5 billion, which (Treasurer) Scott Morrison has said.”

The “forward estimates” refers to Treasury’s predictions for the next four years. Not the next 10 years.

But later Mr Turnbull seemed to indicate Richardson’s figure was credible. He said he was “not confirming or commenting on Chris Richardson other than to say, he’s a former Treasury economist and no doubt you should heed what his advice is”.

Closing off the questioning on the topic, Speers placed the responsibility firmly at Mr Turnbull’s feet: “You’re the one who’s made this 10-year commitment.”

Originally published as The question Malcolm Turnbull really didn’t want to answer