CANBERRA, ACT, June 26 -- The Treasurer of Australia issued the following transcript:
Note
Subjects: tax reform, fuel excise, NDIS, Socceroos
Jim Chalmers:
I'm very pleased with the passage of the government's tax reforms through the parliament last night, very grateful to the Senate, particularly my colleague there, Katy Gallagher for the work that she did with the PM to ensure the passage of these reforms.
These reforms are the most ambitious tax reforms in this country for more than a quarter of a century. They are a win for workers, for first‑home buyers and for future generations.
What these reforms mean is more tax cuts for workers, to make it easier as well for first‑home buyers to get a toehold in a difficult housing market - especially young people - and also a fairer tax system which better aligns the tax treatment of labour and asset income.
Now economic reform in this country is always contested, that's especially true of tax reform, but it's worth it. It's worth it because it means tax cuts for workers, a fair go for first‑home buyers and a fairer tax system for Australians into the future.
Journalist:
Treasurer, there were some concerns in the passage of this bill about the so‑called widow's tax. Are you planning to fix that, and if so, when?
Chalmers:
We made that clear yesterday, that that will be addressed in subsequent tranches of legislation. We have been working on that issue. The fact that there were Senate amendments being circulated to that effect meant that we had to make it clear yesterday that we intend to address that.
It's not unusual when you're making major tax reforms, like we are, for there to be consultation, for there to be multiple pieces of legislation. We saw that in early episodes of tax reform in the Howard government. I think something like 30 pieces of legislation for the GST, another 30 or so for the CGT changes that were made in and around 1999. So it's not unusual for there to be consultation, not unusual for there to be multiple pieces of legislation, and that's what we're seeing here.
Journalist:
But doesn't that show how rushed this was, you know, if you had more- was this just an oversight, how did this kind of loophole end up in the legislation?
Chalmers:
Well, as I said a couple of days ago, the arrangements in the first piece of legislation reflect or are consistent with arrangements elsewhere in the tax system. This issue came up at the Senate inquiry and at other times. We made it clear yesterday in the Senate, I made it clear in Question Time in parliament that we're aware of these issues, we're working through them. And once again, it's not unusual for that to be the case.
Now, the important development yesterday was the passage of the key elements of these very ambitious tax reforms, but we have said throughout, there's consultation on detail, there will be subsequent pieces of legislation too.
Journalist:
Treasurer, it's obviously very hard to predict what happens in this building, but when we are talking about the NDIS changes, what are your hopes with that? We know that the Senate inquiry has been extended. In an ideal world, when do you want to see those changes made so that it doesn't impact the budget bottom line?
Chalmers:
Well, this is another really important economic reform, but it's all about saving the NDIS from itself. We're big believers in the NDIS. We need to make sure that we can pay for a level of care and service that Australians with a disability need and deserve in a sustainable way.
So I pay tribute to Mark Butler and Jenny McAllister and others for all of the work that's going into this really important economic reform as well.
Now, when it comes to timing, I think as you rightly pre‑empted in your question, I've learned not to take outcomes in the Senate for granted, but we have committed to do a longer inquiry in that regard. There will be a cost to that, but that is necessary when it comes to the passage of the government's broader legislative agenda, including these tax reform changes.
And the last point I'd make about that, when the 3 right‑wing parties vacate the field on economic reform they give us no choice but to negotiate with others on the Senate crossbench. That's just the reality of a Senate where no one party has the numbers on its own.
Journalist:
So from that statement, we'd understand that your preferred partner in terms of negotiating tax legislation would have been the Coalition instead of the Greens?
Chalmers:
Well, there's not much point really going back through that. They vacated the field quite early. And you know, the absurdity of their position was they wanted a longer inquiry after they'd already announced that they were opposed to the legislation that they hadn't seen yet.
The 3 right‑wing parties in this country share a divisive, anti‑worker, anti‑housing agenda. We see that time and time again when it comes to their votes in the parliament. All 3 of those right‑wing parties are essentially the same when it comes to opposing tax cuts for workers and a fair go for first‑home buyers.
Now they made that view very clear before they'd seen the legislation, before the second inquiry even began. And so in that world, where they're not prepared to play a constructive role, the onus is on us to pass our legislation in other ways.
Journalist:
Also, on that so‑called widow's tax, and also the changes that were made to discretionary testamentary trusts, the language the government has been using- you used it today, the Housing Minister was using it yesterday- is that the government is aware of these issues and they're working through them.
But I guess the question for a lot of voters and the Opposition I think been putting forward, is why were you not aware of them before the Budget was handed down, because they're obviously politically poisonous pieces of legislation?
Chalmers:
Well, I think as I've made clear in the answer to other questions, it's not unusual for issues like this to be worked through in consultation and in the finalisation of multiple pieces of legislation. And we've seen that on other occasions when there's been tax reform in this country. And we were really upfront on Budget night that we knew that there was more consultation to do, and that's been the case, and we've been working through that in a considered way, a methodical way to make sure that as these implementation details and next steps are announced that we get it right. And that's why the consultation's been meaningful, it's been genuine, and as I've said, this is consistent with how tax reform's been done in the past.
Journalist:
So does that mean its initial inclusion was an oversight?
Chalmers:
I wouldn't describe it that way. I mean this issue popped up earlier than this week, and the language we used in describing the current arrangements, the consistency with other parts of the tax system reflected a bit of caution on our part, but you know, we were still working through those Senate amendments.
But when it became clear that we had to explain in the Senate why we weren't supporting some amendments which had been put forward. But why we intended to address the issues that they were seeking to address, I think that's standard practice in tax reform, that this is how it works. It's happened like this under other governments, there's consultation, there's multiple pieces of legislation, and that's what we're seeing.
Journalist:
Treasurer, if it came up earlier, then why did it take till the 11th hour for it to be fixed?
Chalmers:
I've just explained that in my answer to earlier questions. There were Senate amendments being circulated and we had to explain why we were addressing those issues in another way.
Journalist:
The AFR has reported overnight that the changes that have been made post‑Budget night will cost in the realm of $1billion. Can you confirm that, or is that an accurate figure?
Chalmers:
I think that's a very misleading story, because the number that they have used, the biggest part of that number, in fact around half of that number is our extension of the cut to the fuel excise, which is not connected to the government's tax reform legislation.
And so I would caution against putting too much weight on that number. And as for the rest of it, as we've made clear in answering some of the other questions today. And on other occasions, it's not unusual for there to be consultation as we bed down implementation details, and in the usual way that will be reflected in the mid‑year budget update.
Journalist:
The PM's indicated some changes to the social media ban. Are you able to give us any more detail on what we should expect, what parents and children should expect?
Chalmers:
The honest answer is no, it hasn't been my focus, but I'm a big supporter of the ban, because you can see what social media risks doing to our kids, with generation after generation of young people. And so this is all about making sure that we get the settings right, we protect our kids online.
These are world‑leading reforms, and I pay tribute here to Anika Wells, Michelle Rowland before her, the PM, for the leadership that they're showing in bedding down these important reforms. As for next steps, they would be best placed to lay them out for you.
Journalist:
And just quickly, is the door still open to another extension to the fuel excise?
Chalmers:
I wouldn't expect that. One of the reasons why we've tapered is because the most responsible way to do this is to do it in a targeted and temporary and now tapered way.
And we had 3 motivations for extending that excise relief. First of all, cost‑of‑living help delivered in the most responsible way that we can; secondly, there's still a lot of uncertainty in the Middle East - even with welcome developments in the last couple of weeks; and thirdly, we wanted to make sure that there wasn't a big 32cent change, you know, at midnight on the last day of June. We were worried about what that might mean on the ground in communities, at servos around the country. And so those are our motivations for extending that petrol‑price relief. It's played a really important role in taking some of the sting out of this war in the Middle East, and the best way to extend that is in a tapered way so that it tapers off at the beginning of August.
Journalist:
What's your response to Phil Lowe's comments, he says it's a mistake to extend the CGT changes beyond residential property, warning it can be a hit to growth and investment.
Journalist:
What's your response?
Chalmers:
Look, I don't share his view, he's entitled to express it, but I don't share his view. When it comes to the substance of his comments, we are fixing a very damaging distortion that has existed in our tax system for a quarter of a century that's locked too many people out of housing, especially young people. And once you decide to deal with that distortion, it doesn't make a lot of sense to replace it with another distortion in the tax system.
If you look a 20‑year period between when that policy mistake was made by Howard and Costello to now, if you analyse a 20‑year period, you can see that established housing in capital cities was over‑compensated for, and other kinds of investment in some instances were under‑compensated. And so by removing that distortion we're seeking to encourage investment being made for economic reasons, not for tax advantages. And so I have a different view on the substance of what Phil Lowe has said, but obviously he's got a right to express his view.
Journalist:
Treasurer, on One Nation more broadly, what kind of risk do they pose to Queenslanders, specifically in, not just regional, but also South East Queensland? What kind of risk do they pose?
Chalmers:
Well, it's impossible to distinguish the damage that all 3 of the right‑wing parties would do to the interests of workers and first‑home buyers, whether it be in the best state in the Commonwealth or the rest of the Commonwealth. And that's because the 3 right‑wing parties share this very divisive, very dangerous anti‑worker, anti‑housing agenda. It's hard to distinguish them when it comes to that anti‑worker agenda that they share.
And I think one of the reasons why the Liberal Party is dying in Angus Taylor's arms is because his efforts to out‑One Nation One Nation is just look more and more pathetic each day. That's why there's now whispering about his leadership. He's only been there 5minutes, and they're already talking about replacing him. And that's because I think it looks pathetic the way he's just trying to be a paler shade of orange.
It's impossible to distinguish them. All 3 of them are exactly the same, we saw that when they voted against tax cuts and against a fair go for first‑home buyers in the parliament about 12hours ago.
Journalist:
How much are the Socceroos going to win by today?
Chalmers:
One‑nil, we'll win one‑nil today at lunchtime, and I think the whole country - even those of us who aren't, you know, staying up till 2 in the morning and watching Premier League every week - we love the Socceroos and the Matildas too. And they say something wonderful about our country, and they've got a big job to do at lunchtime today. And I'm confident that the whole country, the entire country will get behind them.
Journalist:
Are you giving workers the green light to call in sick today?
Chalmers:
That's not for me- sick days are not part of my responsibilities as Treasurer. I suspect there will be a bit of that, I suspect there might be a few longish lunches, particularly if we win. I think a lot of people might be finding a reason not to go back to the office after lunch if we win, and you know, that's a good thing.
There's something wonderful about the Socceroos, and I think the fact that this is such a consequential game. The fact that there is so much to love about the Socceroos, I think a lot of employers around the country would understand if people don't come back on site or back to the office after lunch if we win.
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
