E&OE TRANSCRIPT
DOORSTOP
SYDNEY
FRIDAY, 12 APRIL 2019
 
SUBJECT/S: Labor’s Medicare Cancer Plan; Dutton’s attack on the disabled; Israel Folau; politicisation of Treasury; Labor’s plans for a fairer tax system; Perth debate; Julian Assange; NewStart

BRIAN OWLER, LABOR CANDIDATE FOR BENNELONG: Welcome everyone here to Bennelong it’s great to have everyone come along today and talk more about Labor’s Medicare Cancer plan. I would like to of course welcome Bill Shorten, Catherine King, Kristina Keneally and of course the advocates here from Avner Pancreatic Cancer Foundation. We are going to talk more about Labor’s Medicare Cancer Plan but as most people know I am a neurosurgeon I deal with brain cancer in adults and children. But I also deal with cancers like breast cancers, thyroid, lung cancers, prostate cancer, melanoma, and I work with people on their journey because often those metastasise to the brain and spine. And I’m very proud to stand here talking about Labor’s Medicare Cancer Plan, because I know what a difference it’s going to make for the patients that I see, but all those patients right across the country. Not just financially, but in terms of supporting them through their journey with more cancer care nurses, through CanTeen, through Camp Quality and the research funding that we’re announcing again today. So, I’d like to now introduce Bill Shorten, and I’ll talk to you soon.
 
BILL SHORTEN, LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: Thanks, Brian Owler, Labor’s candidate in Bennelong, and Catherine and I have both found Brian a great source of advice and insight about our cancer Medicare package and we look forward, if Catherine’s the Health Minister and I get elected, of using Brian’s skills in government. First of all can I just thank the Avner Institute. This is a very important visit. It’s important because it reminds us all, the marvellous travelling media gallery we’ve got with us and politicians like ourselves. Reminds us what this election’s really about. Nothing is more important than family and health care. Today we're announcing $125 million for more cancer research. We’re here at the Avner Institute as pancreatic cancer is such a challenging cancer. We’re here because we want to provide $20 million to help reinforce the marvellous work they’re doing here.
 
We’ve got the world’s best researchers. We should have the world’s best funded research. We should make sure we give the world’s best researchers the tools they need, to help beat cancer. I’ve found this morning’s visit quite moving. I got to talk to Susie, she’s just outstanding. She’s battling with a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Strong, elegant, just determined and resilient. And as we were talking about the challenge of pancreatic cancer, it tends to put everything else back into perspective doesn’t it? She’s working in a residential renovation business, she’s very creative, does a lot of the design. And what happens is that when you get this diagnosis, all of a sudden the stuff which you normally worry about is far less stressful. It puts your priorities perhaps where they need to be. I was also talking with Paul. Would you believe that I actually ran into Paul when we were on holidays down on the south coast of NSW two summers ago? Paul perhaps wasn’t aware fully of my role as the Opposition Leader, but we had a good chat at the time and that’s fair enough. Got to work on that. But it was only a short time after that, that he got the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer and his father passed from it 20 years earlier, and Paul made the comment to me that he was surprised how much things hadn’t changed. He’s got a 12 year old, a 13 year old, he’s got a 17 year old, he’s got children. This is the fight of your life. This is why we are so proud of pushing billions into helping the out of pocket costs of cancer. This is why we’re pushing hundreds of millions of dollars of that into public hospitals to reduce waiting lists. This is why we are putting money into research. You know, Mr Morrison and the government they love to say that I’m the enemy, and you know sometimes in politics we carry on too much against each other. I want to say today the government are not my enemy. Cancer is my enemy. What we want to do is fight cancer and do the very best we can. That’s why we’re making the choices we are, as we present our policies to the people. I’d now like to invite Catherine to talk further and we’ll hear from the Avner Institute as well. 
 
CATHERINE KING, SHADOW MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND MEDICARE: Thanks Bill and it’s terrific to be here with Bill and particularly with Brian Owler, my friend and who I am very much looking forward to as being a colleague. He’s someone whose advice I’ve relied on for many, many years and he will make a fantastic Member for Bennelong. We’re also here with Caroline, from the Avner Cancer Foundation. Pancreatic cancer is just one of those awful, awful cancers. There’s no good cancer, they’re all bad, but this is such a sneaky cancer. Some 3,200 people will be diagnosed, and only 10 per cent, or less than ten per cent of them survive after five years. It’s a cancer that hides. It’s a cancer that uses your own cells to actually hide from chemotherapy and it’s resistant to many of the new immunotherapy drugs and the standard treatments, and we’ve not had enough money in research. So I’m very proud as part of our $2.3 billion Medicare Cancer Plan, to be investing $125 million in addition to what comes out of the Medical Research Future Fund or the NHMRC, this is additional $125 million for cancer research. And $20 million to help the Avner Pancreatic Cancer Foundation to really start to turbocharge  research in this area, because these people, these beautiful people, Susie and Paul who we’ve met today and the many people I’ve know who have passed away with pancreatic cancer can’t wait. They need this research today. I’m really proud to introduce Caroline today who lost her beautiful husband Avner 10 years ago from pancreatic cancer, and she’s turned what has been a awful, awful family experience into trying to fight for the so many patients who we lose each year from pancreatic cancer. Caroline.
 
CAROLINE: Thank you all. Pancreatic cancer is a particularly horrific form of cancer. Less than ten per cent survive till five years, and for 80 per cent of patients diagnosed, they’ll be lucky to see 12 months. It is the cancer of our generation and it needs to be fixed. We can see from other forms of cancer such as breast cancer and prostate cancer that with research funding, those stats can change. Both those forms of cancer have five year survival rates of 90 per cent and higher. We know that this can also happen for pancreatic cancer. My husband Avner died in 2008. He was one of 3000 people who died back then, and every year since then, those similar kind of numbers have died. We really applaud and are so sincerely grateful for this great decision by the ALP to invest in pancreatic cancer research. I know that all the families I meet across the country who have been affected by it, who have lost loved ones in as soon as a few days will really be so thrilled that there’s finally some hope for the disease, and I’d just like to say a personal thank you for this decision. Thank you.
 
SHORTEN: Thank you. Are there questions? I’ll start on my left and work around but we’ll try and cover as many as we can.
 
JOURNALIST: Mr Shorten what do you make of Peter Dutton’s comments about Labor’s candidate in Dickson? Do you think he’s being deliberately provocative in suggesting that she’s using her disability as an excuse?
 
SHORTEN: I’ll certainly go to those remarks, but are there any questions on the cancer research announcement first? I mean, no but that’s cool if, I mean it’s pretty self-explanatory. If there aren’t?
 
JOURNALIST: Yes a question on cancer research spending. Mr Shorten you’re here with Brian Owler. In 2014 Brian Owler, speaking to health fund bosses, it’s reported said “seven per cent of procedures that were covered by health funds incurred out of pocket costs. So how many services incur this out of pocket cost? How bad is that problem of out of pocket costs? And do you expect Brian Owler to come into the Parliament for the Member of Bennelong given the swing that we saw at the by-election?
 
SHORTEN: Oh listen I think Brian is a very good candidate. How many seats in Australia have got a surgeon of his track record and his public policy leadership? Brian Owler's taking a significant financial hit, to run for Parliament, and that's his choice. But he's done a lot of good and we were just speaking to a lovely lady in there, Sharon, who's been working on the scanning machines for 45 years and she said to me that patients are going to be disappointed because he's done so much for them but Brian's willing to subject himself to this and all the other issues, Labor's very lucky at the moment we've got a very talented front bench, I promise you Catherine King will be an outstanding Minister for Health. We've got some very talented people running in hard seats, Brian Owler hasn't asked for the easy path through a safe Labor seat. Bennelong is a very difficult seat for Labor to win. But how lucky is my party that we're attracting people of his calibre, his knowledge. I think it speaks volumes for him, and perhaps even a little but for our united party, you know we're the party of unity but Brian can answer some of the more detailed questions in a moment but I want to go to this question. I've noticed it percolate through conservative blogs sites or other forms, you know, or some of the government ministers saying there's no problem with out of pocket expenses in cancer. If you believe that go and ask someone who's getting cancer treatment right now. We've set up a website in the last few days, just to ask people's stories. We've had hundreds of heart breaking stories. If the government is so out of touch that they think that there's no out of pocket problem with the treatment of cancer, I suggest they talk to people diagnosed with cancer. I met an amazing lady at the Royal Brisbane Hospital, seems a lifetime ago but it was Monday, Elaine, she's had a diagnosis, she's been battling cancer since 2011. Nothing has worked, she's had to go into the private system, get the cancer trials. She's a really warm lady, I would put to you that 100 per cent of you here would hope that she was your neighbour, she’s a lovely lady. She said to me, "Bill I think we're now down to ten per cent chance, we're going to try one more drug". But she just held my hand and she just said "what worries me is not what happens to me, it’s that my family will be left with a debt." And, you know, go and ask the number of people that have to access their superannuation just to pay for their cancer treatment bills. So listen, I think the government shouldn't be running this argument that everything's fine and dandy, because it's not. Yes the public system's excellent. But there are waiting lists, massive waiting times. And I want to give you, even I as a lay person have worked out this about cancer - you can't out-wait cancer. Cancer makes you sick, but it shouldn't make you poor. There is a problem. Labor has deliberately made hard decisions, not totally popular with everyone, to say that you can't get a tax subsidy on your sixth property investment, but we are saying, "I would rather use taxpayer money to help Susie and Paul" - these are real people we're talking about. This isn't a theoretical debate or a Canberra game. Pancreatic cancer is a shocker. The Avner research, formed out of love, why shouldn't it have some government money? I don't know if you want to hear from Brian too on this question.
 
JOURNALIST: Just one question on that same speech...
 
SHORTEN: We'll get Brian, and then I'll come...
 
OWLER: Thanks. Look, that's a really good question, because it goes to a fundamental issue of a misunderstanding about how our healthcare system works. Because those issues around private health insurance don't apply to when people are having consultations in people's offices, or when they're having scans as outpatients. Private health insurance only applies to the procedures that you're actually having in hospital. When you have cancer, you're having scans every three months, often appointments much more frequently than that. And they are the costs that add up over time. So, when people start pushing this line about, "it's all covered, or your private health insurance covers it," it doesn't. Sure, a lot of people get their services for free in the public system, but many people choose the private system as well, and our healthcare system works best when both our public and our private systems are functioning well, they're well-funded and they're balanced.
 
JOURNALIST: Doctor Owler, just on that same speech, you're reported as saying, "we know that people will happily pay for cosmetic procedures but feel affronted if there's any cost associated with their cancer care." It appears that you took aim with people complaining about high medical gap care costs. Have you changed your mind on that sense?
 
OWLER: People are often, I think, not shocked, but they don't understand how the system works. So, we have a lot of people that do go out and are happy to pay $5,000 to have a cosmetic procedure. But they are sometimes quite shocked at the costs that are involved in their cancer treatment over time. And what this policy goes to, what Labor's Medicare Cancer Plan goes to, is addressing those issues. You know, the things that the Consumer Health Forum, the Breast Cancer Network of Australia, and a whole range of other groups have said, is that people are having difficulty dealing with the costs of cancer. And, in fact, the Consumer Health Forum's paper is titled Hear Our Pain. Well, Labor has listened. And we're addressing those issues around those costs of cancer care.
 
JOURNALIST: Mr Shorten, can I ask you about Israel Folau?
 
SHORTEN: You can in a moment. But I promised I would start here. Sorry. I'll come to you soon.
 
JOURNALIST: Thanks, Ali France and Peter Dutton - what's your response?
 
SHORTEN: Ali France, let's just get some background here, so we understand. I find Mr Dutton's comments disgusting. How you can launch a personal attack on a person who suffered an above-the-knee amputation trying to protect their child, and then say somehow they're exploiting that, you know, I just want to tell you what happened with Ali France. And she can say it better in her words. She was in a shopping centre. She's got her little four-year-old boy. An elderly driver lost control of their vehicle, smashed into them. She shielded her four-year-old, as any mother would do, and she took the full brunt of the collision. She suffered an amputation above her knee. And for people who are amputees above your knee, that is even more difficult in terms of recovery. For two and a half years, Ali France never walked. She was told she would never walk again. Now, she credits a fantastic surgeon. She credits fantastic technology. Two and a half years after she was told she would never walk again, she did. She's a very strong person. Of course, as you would know, though, you could imagine when you have, if you haven't been through it, or had a family member go through it, when you're an above-the-knee amputee, you can't just have a shower like anyone else, you can't just move around your kitchen. She's a strong woman, she walks a lot, she's out there every day. But what she had to do was modify her house, because it can be so draining sometimes, she uses a wheelchair in her house so she's got all her energy for outside the house. As anyone would know when you look at houses, very few of them have been built, designed for the use of older people, people with mobility problems, or, indeed, people with disabilities. She spent over $100,000 of her compensation money just getting the house she lives in. She doesn't own eight or nine houses, by the way. She just owns the house she lives in. She invested over $100,000 of her compensation money just to get that house right. She doesn't own eight or nine houses, by the way. She just owns the house she lives in. She invested over $100,000 to get that house right. She's a strong woman. And, by the way, she knows that Peter Dutton's making these comments because he's scared of her. What else could motivate it? She doesn't want people's sympathy. The idea, though, that any Australian with a disability would rather use their disability than not have the disability is a fiction. She never wanted the car crash. She never wanted the amputation. But she's a strong person. We want more diversity in our Parliament. So, why is it that the very - a mother who lost her leg protecting her child is now subject to a personal attack by a scared government minister? I think - I think that is disgusting. Now, I know the government boasts about, you know, going after Labor - don't they get it? This country is sick of that rubbish. I think Mr Morrison should make his colleague apologise. I also remind you that a week ago - it was a week ago today - the government announced the Disability Royal Commission. And their words were excellent words, beautiful rhetoric, soaring. They said, "We've got to have a culture of respect towards people with disability in this country." Well, that didn't last very long, did it? You know, so what we have here is Mr Dutton has insulted every Australian with a disability, and Mr Morrison has said, "That's OK." So, you know, Ali France is campaigning. She was at a railway station this morning. She understands - she can recognise fear in her competitor when we see this sort of base personal attack. But is this where the government's got to? That they're going to start saying a person is using their disability? Especially, all you had to do was get that 60-second back-story that I told you.
 
JOURNALIST: In regards to Israel Folau - and I appreciate many people will be repulsed by his comments, he has an implied right to practise a religion. He has an implied right to preach that religion. Why doesn't he have a right to put that on social media?
 
SHORTEN: I think, when you single out parts of the population with an offensive attack, I think the rugby authorities have acted in an appropriate manner. I don't really want to get into everything that's been said, but there is no freedom to perpetuate hateful speech. And, you know, some of the comments which have been seen are far closer to hateful than I think appropriate for what people should be doing on social media.
 
JOURNALIST: Mr Shorten, the government's released what it says is Treasury modelling, putting the cost of your tax measures and non-measures at $387 billion. What do you say the true figure is? And how do you explain the discrepancy, if there is one?
 
SHORTEN: First of all, I think this is a desperate government who are willing to lie about anything. I just want to go to what Senator Cormann said in Estimates. This is why we struggle to take the government seriously on their campaign of lies and untruths. Senator Cormann was asked - there was a Treasury person asked a question by one of our Labor senators, and it was about costings. And Senator Cormann said - these are his words, they're not mine - we'd better tell that Western Australian Minister that.
 
Senator Cormann said, "That is not the Treasury's job. The Treasury does not cost Labor's proposals." 20 February. Now, apparently, either he was lying then, or we're seeing lies now. The other thing is about this, the government insists on characterising us shutting down loopholes and unsustainable subsidies to the top end of town as taxes. Let me use an example. Accountants' exemption. What happens is, you can, if you're fortunate enough to have a million dollars to deduct, you get that million dollars, you get the accountant to look at the deductions, you can write off a million dollars of your tax - sweet.
 
Did you also know that in Australia that, if that accountant charges you $100,000, you can claim the cost of minimising your tax, even what you paid the accountant to do it? And if we are going to stop that loophole, that is not a new tax. That's cracking down on a loophole. This government have become so addicted to defending their mates at the top end of town, they no longer recognise the difference between a tax and just protecting a rort.
 
JOURNALIST: What do you say the total impact is then? Is it 387 or is it different?
 
SHORTEN: No, I'm not even buying into that debate, because it's a false debate. I'll use another example. This government I think from its propaganda is somehow saying that a tax cut in 2025 - which they haven't legislated - so, in other words, they're promising you something in 2025. We think there's a better way to do it, we don't agree with them. But it's not actually the law. They're now saying that, because we won't agree to something they haven't done in six years' time, that that is a tax increase on Australians. This is a fairytale. And I tell you - just hang on, Jono - to further answer your question, the reason why I don't even accept the basis of what they're saying, it’s this. We all know the government wants to run a scare campaign. They've run out of anything positive to say about anything or anything, haven’t they. So, they just want to scare everyone. The reality is this election is about choices. I choose to shut down loopholes, like that accountants’ exemption. I choose to support not giving a property investor a subsidy for their sixth house, and instead I choose to spend it on health care. But I want to remind Australians, who are getting - on day two of an increasingly rancorous political debate, Liberal, Labor, National, who do you believe, what’s going on, I just want to say to Australians, this election is about you, the people.
 
It's not about us. I want to say that whilst I disagree fundamentally with how this government's fluffed up the last - mucked up the last six years, their instability, costs of living, everything going up except your wages, their cuts to schools and hospitals, I don't see the government as my enemy. I see cancer as my enemy. I see as my enemy when people can't afford to see the doctor or get the treatment they want. And Australians, I think, want to hear more of that from our politicians.
 
JOURNALIST: Clearly, the Labor Party is going to collect far more revenue than the government does over the next four years, over the next ten years. Clearly that's part of your plan. Doesn't that not have some sort of economic impact which will affect ordinary people?
 
SHORTEN: It's clear that we want to spend more money on public schools. That will have an economic bonus. It is clear that we want to have universal kindergarten for all three and four-year-olds. Did you know Labor's policy is to provide 15 hours a week, 40 weeks a year, to all three and four-year-olds? The dividend of that means that those kids, when they get that preschool, kindergarten education, are going to have a much better learning experience at school. The smartest countries in the world already do this.
 
What we choose to do is spend scarce and important taxpayer money on educating the kids, on decreasing the out-of-pocket costs of, you know, cancer treatment, rather than spend it on tax loopholes like deductions to accountants for $1 million, or property subsidies. The other one which is a big, you know, I go to now - just to help explain why we mean I don't accept their figures at all - is that at the moment in Australia, we give nearly $6 billion in tax credits to people who don't pay tax. This is called a gift. And it's a nearly $6 billion gift. And it's going to increase every year. So, when we say we're not going to give the gift anymore, that is not a tax increase. It's just a decision to improve the bottom line of the budget, it's a decision to fund our health care. One in two Australians will get a diagnosis of cancer by the time they’re 85, the average life expectancy, one in two of us. And it’s expensive, and I just want to make sure that when you’re in the fight of your life we’re alongside you. You're next - and then yourself. 
 
JOURNALIST: On the accountant’s exemption, Mr. Shorten - the tax commissioner last month said he was sceptical that most of the savings claimed weren't from managing tax affairs but were in fact from other deductions, are you 100 per cent confident that you will raise the $1.8 billion over the next decade that Labor wants to from closing this loophole?
 
SHORTEN: I'm 100 per cent confident, that Labor is right, to stop allowing people deduct hundreds of thousands of dollars off their tax for what they pay their accountant. Just hang on Rich - your question, but my answer. So I'm 100 per cent confident that what we can do, that this is a fairer system. Why should someone who pays a million dollars to their accountant, to minimize their tax for millions more - why should we pay for the double dip? I mean it's a sweet deal, it's not illegal, but enough's enough. How long does this go on before we say I'd rather fund the school where your kids go to, and I'd rather fund pancreatic cancer research? 
 
JOURNALIST: But Mr Shorten -  But Mr Shorten I- 
 
SHORTEN: Timmy - Richard, I've given you - we've got plenty of time, another 35 days for better or for worse - Tim and I'll come back.
 
JOURNALIST: Mr Shorten, Scott Morrison has accepted a challenge to debate you in Perth, I understand. One, could you give us a direct answer to the challenge to have a debate in Perth, two, more broadly could you tell us how many debates do you think we should have in this campaign, and what kind of conditions would you apply to the way they are conducted, where they're conducted, and when we'd see them? 
 
SHORTEN: Well I'm going to be in Perth, and I'm more - I'm going to be at a town hall meeting talking to the people, and I'm more than happy if the other fellow comes along - ok, that's fine. Secondly, it's a shame that Mr Morrison, or the government I should say, just saw fit to have ten days of Parliament in eight months, cause isn't that where we do a lot of the debating? I'm certainly up to a couple of debates with him, certainly, but I want the people involved.
 
But what I'm going to do in this election, by all means, let's have a couple of debates, I think that's appropriate and conventional, but I just want to say to the Australian people in the next 35 days, we want to keep hearing from you, we want to talk our positive plans. This is a very clear choice. Everything in Australia is going up except your wages. We've seen cuts to schools and hospitals. When you go and see the doctor, in the fight of your life for cancer, the out of pocket costs can be horrendous for too many of our fellow Australians. This nation is sick and tired of rising energy prices, we're sick and tired of no real action on climate change. We've got solid plans which put working and middle class people at the centre of what we do, and we're going to talk about that, we're going to talk about how we're going to help the pensioners, we've got plans to help small business, we've got plans to help, of course, you know, our tax position - we're offering lower taxes for 3.6 million wage earners, and we're offering a better deal for small and medium sized businesses, when they invest more than $20,000 in new, depreciable productive equipment and capital expenditure, we're going to accelerate the depreciation.
 
Sorry, someone who hasn't asked a question first. 
 
JOURNALIST: On treasury being used to cost Labor policies while the government is in government, and then those numbers subsequently being released during the caretaker period, is that something that Labor sees a problem with?
 
SHORTEN: Well, the politicisation of Treasury is a problem. I mean the current head of Treasury spent ten years working for Peter Costello, worked very closely with the current Prime Minister. I worry that we see the trashing of conventions in our Westminster system and an independent public service, so I do see problems with that. But that's okay, I expect in this election, the government's attack on Labor to get louder, shout-ier, more aggressive, and more exaggerated, I guess that's the price we pay when we have a government who's got nothing positive to say about the people. 
 
Sorry, is there anyone who hasn't asked a question. 
 
JOURNALIST: Yeah, just quickly: Are you at all concerned about the Real Estate Institute's active campaign to lose Labor votes in marginal seats over negative gearing?
 
SHORTEN: Well, the real estate agents, obviously, it's in their financial interests to keep taxpayer money flowing to their business model.
 
JOURNALIST: But they say - its going to create more instability in housing.
 
SHORTEN: Yeah, no I'm telling you what's really going on. You've got to ask yourself, why are they campaigning? They're campaigning because they like to have people bidding for houses, who are getting a taxpayer - because the more people they have bidding for houses, the more they can charge their percentage on the sale. But this is what's really cute about what the real estate agents aren't telling people, or the institute, not each  - I don't hold each real estate agent responsible - this negative gearing relies on a principle that you invest in property, make a loss, and the government subsidizes you. I don't believe the Australian property market needs a taxpayer handout to make property worthwhile. In this suburb here, there's no new land. This argument that somehow, Moody's has forecast the property prices will rebound - this is a scare campaign by vested interests who love getting taxpayer money. But why should a nurse, or a truck driver, pay their taxes to Canberra to subsidise someone to buy their sixth property? You know, this Saturday, and I don't know if you'll have time when you're on the road, you go to a couple of auctions, and you will see couples, who've worked hard, they've got together their 20 per cent deposit, they're ready for the you know, fees and charges, and they'll just simply get out-bid. Under this government, property prices have fallen, but they take no responsibility for that. Under this government ho voted 26 times against a Banking Royal Commission, they let the banks run amok, now the regulators, you know, had a big reaction and are now all over the banks, the banks don't want to lend as much money - when does this government take responsibility for the shambles of the last six years?
 
JOURNALIST: It's one of your big ticket policies - can you tell us clearly what is the breakdown between new and existing properties and negative gearing? We haven't got a clear answer on that question. 
 
SHORTEN: We think currently the vast majority of negative gearing subsidies, go to people who invest in existing housing. We would like to see that oriented towards new housing. So the other thing I should just make, ican't say this enough, because I'm not sure that some of the vested interests who love their government taxpayer subsidy to prop up their business model will tell you, our changes are not retrospective. Any Australian who invests up to the 31st of December 2019, under the current laws, they'll be negatively geared. It's not a retrospective change, and you can still do it for new housing. 
 
Is there someone who hasn't asked a question?
 
JOURNALIST: Can I just ask about Julian Assange - should Australia be doing anything to stop his extradition to the United States, and what's your general reaction on his arrest? 
 
SHORTEN: Well I don't know what's going on in the last seven years in the Ecuadorian Embassy, and I suspect, you know that'll come to light over coming days. He's an Australian, so therefore he's entitled to consular assistance, no more, no less, but he's certainly entitled to consular assistance, I noticed the government said the same thing.
 
JOURNALIST: ACOSS said they want to ramp up Newstart, you say we need it lifted - I know you're going to review it once you ‘re into government, but can you guarantee it'll remain the same level?
 
SHORTEN: We're not reviewing it - Newstart's too low. And we're not reviewing Newstart to keep it at such low levels, but we've got to get it right, you've got to see the interaction with the tax and transfer system. I mean, Newstart is just part of a broader problem. The problem in Australia is that everything's been going up except people's wages. We need to see that, and we're seeing a lot of people being left behind. This economy is not being managed in the interests of working and middle class people. Perhaps we can do one more question here, and then we'll move on, over to you. 
 
JOURNALIST: So, on just what you said about Newstart then, are you suggesting that either way, whatever comes out of the review there will be some kind of increase of some sort?
 
SHORTEN: I think there has to be, but let’s see what happens with the review. I'd be amazed - we're not holding a review to lower it - we're not holding a review to forget about it like they did with the energy payment. But again, just to finish up, I would like to thank the Avner Institute for the work it's been doing. I want to thank, in particular though, Suzie and Paul. They just remind me of what's important. It was a good wake up call, when you get that diagnosis, you're going to worry less about your texts, and a little bit more about your family and what's important. I promise Australians, that during this election I'm going to do my very best to focus on you - that's why we are committed so heavily into revolutionising help with the cost of cancer. Thank you very much. 

ENDS