Speaker 1: Now onto GB and network stations. Back to afternoons with
Speaker 1: Michael McLaren. All right into the third hour. Thank you
Speaker 1: for joining me.
Speaker 2: Ted O'Brien, the Shadow Treasurer, calling in in just a moment.
Speaker 2: We'll have a conversation with him about his priorities for
Speaker 2: the next three years. Also James Thompson later in the hour,
Speaker 2: he's from the AFR, the finn Review. Now they've got
Speaker 2: their AI summit tomorrow, which would be fascinating to attend,
Speaker 2: even for bloodites like me that wouldn't understand one of
Speaker 2: the technical bits of jargon over the other. But nonetheless
Speaker 2: you get the thrust to where this thing's heading. But
Speaker 2: there was a story over the weekend in the Finn
Speaker 2: and you might have seen it made very interesting reading if.
Speaker 1: You got through it.
Speaker 2: And that is how artificial intelligence could firstly kill off
Speaker 2: work from home, but beyond that would have massive ramifications
Speaker 2: for the workforce going forward. I get the feeling we've
Speaker 2: only just scratched the surface of what AI is going
Speaker 2: to do or could do to the way the workplaces
Speaker 2: around us operate, potentially even our own workplaces. But you know,
Speaker 2: I guess only time will tell how far legislation allows
Speaker 2: it to penetrate, but nonetheless it's going to be a
Speaker 2: very very difficult force to hold back. Now, a lot
Speaker 2: of different stories around we were speaking earlier about smoking.
Speaker 2: There's an interesting piece by Rob Harris as the European
Speaker 2: correspondent in The Herald about this. Nothing to do with
Speaker 2: the situation out here per se, but as he says,
Speaker 2: for decades smoking was less a habit in France and Spain,
Speaker 2: that it was rather a cultural flourish. But while much
Speaker 2: of the world stubbed out the social acceptability of smoking
Speaker 2: and long ago, the change in Europe has been slow.
Speaker 2: It's been more reluctant, as he says. However, now term
Speaker 2: of the continent's most iconic smoking nations and making their
Speaker 2: boldest moves yet to catch up. From July one, from
Speaker 2: will be banning smoking in many outdoor places public spaces,
Speaker 2: including beaches, parks, playgrounds, bus stops and areas around schools.
Speaker 2: And as for the Spaniards, well, they're preparing to go
Speaker 2: even further, apparently, with the sweeping reform of its anti
Speaker 2: smoking law set to take effect by the end of
Speaker 2: the year, and that plan, the Spanish plan, will outlaw
Speaker 2: smoking and vaping in places as varied as stadiums, swimming pools,
Speaker 2: university campuses and even work vehicles. Now, of course, a
Speaker 2: lot of that's already been done here and to positive effect.
Speaker 2: The difference between here and there, of course, is the
Speaker 2: tax that they charge smokers on the cigarettes. Now in France,
Speaker 2: there will be a lot of people saying, oh, caldomage,
Speaker 2: because over there, part of the legislation is that the
Speaker 2: price of cigarettes per packet will go from eleven euros
Speaker 2: at the moment, which is just under twenty dollars, to
Speaker 2: twelve euros in twenty twenty five, and thirteen euros, oh
Speaker 2: dear by twenty twenty seven. So when you make it conversion,
Speaker 2: that's maybe twenty four dollars, which is not even half
Speaker 2: the price of a comparable packet out here. So they
Speaker 2: got a long way to go before the illicit market
Speaker 2: really comes in muscles in more so than what it
Speaker 2: would be doing already. But reading all of this as
Speaker 2: a non smoker, did it did make me think and
Speaker 2: I'm not sure what the answer is, but I'm trying
Speaker 2: to think about how long ago it was when smoking
Speaker 2: in public places and restaurants and all of that was
Speaker 2: just alloud and common. I mean, do you remember the
Speaker 2: days when smoking was allowed indoors, in restaurants, on flights,
Speaker 2: in clubs, in cinemas, I mean, all of these different places.
Speaker 2: You may not have been a smoker yourself, but I
Speaker 2: bet you remember when others that were were allowed to partake.
Speaker 2: I mean, I remember working behind a bar at a
Speaker 2: restaurant or two, and even when I was working, smoking
Speaker 2: had to be outdoors. But the way that the wind
Speaker 2: was channeled through the door, and when you know, it
Speaker 2: came straight at me at the bar and you could
Speaker 2: smell it. That's unpleasant. It was in your clothes all
Speaker 2: night long, and that sort of thing. When you got home,
Speaker 2: your stank of it. But it wasn't that long ago
Speaker 2: in the scheme of things that people were puffing away
Speaker 2: inside restaurants and on flights and discothechs and in cinemas
Speaker 2: and you know, all these sort of places. And we're
Speaker 2: much better for not having it now. And I think
Speaker 2: even smokers by and large would agree with me. But
Speaker 2: it did remind me, I guess, of how fortunate we are,
Speaker 2: because there's only a few years ago. I was in
Speaker 2: Vienna and we went along to a pub type of
Speaker 2: joint for dinner. And when we walked in you could
Speaker 2: barely breathe. I mean, it's just smoke everywhere. And this
Speaker 2: was I don't know, five six years ago, maybe I
Speaker 2: don't know, maybe eight, not that long ago, in the
Speaker 2: school of there, and they were puffing away to the
Speaker 2: hearts content inside, and I said, look, I can't hang
Speaker 2: around in here. So I had a bit of a
Speaker 2: wander around and found the non smoking room which was
Speaker 2: out in the back, and as soon as I went in,
Speaker 2: there actually a couple of other families, so this are good.
Speaker 2: So in they all went away from the stench of
Speaker 2: the nicotine. Now, I think in Vienna the rule has
Speaker 2: changed since. I think if you go there now, you're
Speaker 2: they're not smoking over the schnitzels inside. But it wasn't
Speaker 2: that long ago they were puffing away and it was
Speaker 2: it was really gross. It's really gross, but it makes
Speaker 2: you appreciate just how I guess lucky. We've been here
Speaker 2: for what is now quite a long time not to
Speaker 2: have to put up with that over a meal or
Speaker 2: in an enclosed environment. One three, one, eight seven three.
Speaker 1: That open line number twelve past two.
Speaker 2: Okay, Now, look it does seem that only since Labour's
Speaker 2: massive election victory the federal election, if we suddenly seen
Speaker 2: the focus switch from some of them, or two, I
Speaker 2: should say, some of the policies that the party were
Speaker 2: actually offering up in the last few months, who have
Speaker 2: finally got a bit of a laser like focus on
Speaker 2: actually what they want to do with all of this power,
Speaker 2: And a lot of these promises were out in the open.
Speaker 2: But the Opposition, and they will now admit this, did
Speaker 2: not effectively prosecute the case against the worst of the policies.
Speaker 2: In some respects they were willing to match them. That
Speaker 2: was the problem. But the main one I've certainly been
Speaker 2: calling out for a while now is this super tax,
Speaker 2: the tax of the government want to bring on unrealized
Speaker 2: capital gains super portfolios over three million dollars and they
Speaker 2: don't want to indxit. As we're outlined again today, as
Speaker 2: you know, no thanks to the coalition campaign. This is
Speaker 2: the government's tax policy and it's going to come in.
Speaker 2: The question is will it come in as they envisage
Speaker 2: or as the Greens wanted, or if the Coalition decide
Speaker 2: to try to negotiate something here to knock the Greens
Speaker 2: out of the debate. Will it look a little softer,
Speaker 2: but we will still get the whiff of it as
Speaker 2: it were. Well, this is something that the new Shadow
Speaker 2: Treasurer Ted O'Brien is going to have to mull over
Speaker 2: with his colleagues and indeed over the next three years.
Speaker 2: And he's with me on the line. Ted, good to
Speaker 2: speak with you again, thank you for your time. Likewise, Michael,
Speaker 2: when we last spoke you with a shadow energy minister,
Speaker 2: now you're the Shadow Treasurer, so you've got to you know,
Speaker 2: obviously pivot toward the broader economic story here, but tying
Speaker 2: the two together, I think it's still true, irrespective of
Speaker 2: the result a month or so ago, energy is the economy, right,
Speaker 2: So if we've got to get energy policy right so
Speaker 2: that we get the broader economic story of this country.
Speaker 3: Right Michael, you spot on energy still remains absolutely critical
Speaker 3: and an election might come and go, but still Australians
Speaker 3: are paying among the highest prices in the world for
Speaker 3: energy and that makes us poorer and weaker and more
Speaker 3: dependent as a nation and as individuals, and so yes,
Speaker 3: a new portfolio for me as the Shadow Treasurer. But
Speaker 3: the importance of energy being the economy, Well that still remains.
Speaker 2: Now, look, I know you're about to have the debate
Speaker 2: in the party room and this is on net zero.
Speaker 2: But look, whether the Opposition support net zero going forward
Speaker 2: or not, let's assume you do. Is it possible to
Speaker 2: reach net zero in the economy without nuclear power in
Speaker 2: the mixtep.
Speaker 3: Well, certainly, as we spoke about last term of government, Mike,
Speaker 3: when I know you and I spoke about this. Most
Speaker 3: countries around the world, you know, like countries, countries that
Speaker 3: are peers to Australia, they are adopting nuclear energy because
Speaker 3: they've come to the conclusion that you can't get to
Speaker 3: net zero without it and you can't keep prices down
Speaker 3: without it. And so we need to be driven by
Speaker 3: the evidence of what works overseas and what doesn't work.
Speaker 3: Of course, all the policies of the coalition are now
Speaker 3: under review, and that includes our commitment to nuclear energy
Speaker 3: in terms of its form. But we have agreed that
Speaker 3: the moratorium should absolutely be lifted and the details of
Speaker 3: the politician the policy for energy will be determined over time.
Speaker 2: Now to Treasury per se. The big first test, I
Speaker 2: guess here is what you're going to do over this
Speaker 2: tax to do with super balances over three million and
Speaker 2: the unrealized capital gains component. I saw you spoke to
Speaker 2: the Australian overnight and there was some suggestion that there
Speaker 2: may be some deal that could be done here with
Speaker 2: the government if they were willing to walk back certain aspects.
Speaker 2: Wouldn't you I mean, by doing that, aren't you just
Speaker 2: really giving some credibility to what is a dog of
Speaker 2: a policy? I mean, wouldn't you be better off leaving
Speaker 2: it to Labor and the Greens to stuff it and
Speaker 2: then to point out in three years time how they
Speaker 2: stuffed it.
Speaker 3: Well, Michael, the first thing we have to do is
Speaker 3: fight what is your right? A dog of a policy?
Speaker 3: I mean, Labour super innuation tax is it's nothing but
Speaker 3: a tax grap been wrapped up in a lie and
Speaker 3: Jim Chalmers a title pret little bow around that lie
Speaker 3: and is out there trying to sell it. But it
Speaker 3: is bad news. It's super big and super bad and
Speaker 3: you're right. The unrealised capital gains component is just awful.
Speaker 3: This would set a new precedent to tax people for
Speaker 3: a financial gain they haven't even received yet and they
Speaker 3: may not receive. I mean, that is just lunacy. But
Speaker 3: it's going to force a whole change in behavior of people,
Speaker 3: which is why you are going to see tens of
Speaker 3: billions of dollars leave super accounts and go into the
Speaker 3: property market, up in property prices. You'll see startups being
Speaker 3: staffed of a seed capital. You will see high growth stocks,
Speaker 3: including technology, not getting the investment they need. I mean,
Speaker 3: this is bad news. And over time it's going to
Speaker 3: capture more and more people. Younger people today just on
Speaker 3: average salaries, over time they're going to be captured by this.
Speaker 3: So this is indeed a bad piece of public policy,
Speaker 3: and Michael, we have to fight it. We have to
Speaker 3: fight it all the way. Now. As for whether there's
Speaker 3: a deal to be done, my general view is in opposition.
Speaker 3: You should be constructive where you can and critical where
Speaker 3: you master. Across all policies, re portfolio will be exactly
Speaker 3: the same. So yes, of course the door is open
Speaker 3: to talk. But if the Treasurer persists with taxing unrealized
Speaker 3: capital gains, well there will be no ideal to be done.
Speaker 3: Of course, but sure if he wants to talk about it,
Speaker 3: more than happy.
Speaker 2: I let me just try to interpret that and tell
Speaker 2: me if I'm verbaling you ted or not. What you're
Speaker 2: saying is no to unrealized capital gains, no to non
Speaker 2: indexation of the policy, but maybe to a thirty percent
Speaker 2: tax on a conditional rate on super balances over three
Speaker 2: million if those two other elements are left at the door.
Speaker 3: Almost Michael, But what I probably won't please don't you
Speaker 3: be offended by this? But I want sort of go
Speaker 3: through negotiating positions at this point on radio.
Speaker 2: But if it's about principle, right, so you're open to
Speaker 2: the principle of increasing that rate.
Speaker 3: On super So let me answer from a principled position.
Speaker 3: Our starting principle, whether it be superannuation or any other tax,
Speaker 3: is as a coalition, we believe in lower, simpler and
Speaker 3: fairer taxes, and so any increase in taxation for us
Speaker 3: is something that we typically push away. What then we've
Speaker 3: said about superannuation is, as you look at Labour's superannuation tax,
Speaker 3: it is so bad that the most egregious element is
Speaker 3: the tax on unrealized capital gains. And I've referred to
Speaker 3: that as being a red line that would set a
Speaker 3: new precedent. The first thing that Jim Chalmers needs to
Speaker 3: do is to confirm he will scrap that. Secondly, not
Speaker 3: indexing it, which means over time captures more and more
Speaker 3: people get stung by this bad tax. Exactly right. Again,
Speaker 3: the Treasurer needs to confirm that he's prepared to compromise
Speaker 3: on that. There's a third element and that is just
Speaker 3: the integrity of what they're even trying to do. The
Speaker 3: legislation Michael, they've put into the Parliament gives the treasure
Speaker 3: of the power to define how these changes would affect
Speaker 3: the Prime Minister, his boss. And by the way, he
Speaker 3: won't tell the Australian people how it will affect the
Speaker 3: Prime Minister until after the legislation goes through. So there
Speaker 3: are integrity issues here, and then of course there's the
Speaker 3: tax increase itself. So basically we need to fight this,
Speaker 3: but on any policy will be constructed. So if Jim
Speaker 3: Chalmers sees the light and he is prepared to be
Speaker 3: humble enough to recognize that this is a big, bad
Speaker 3: super tax, then more than happy to have a conversation
Speaker 3: about how we can work together on super reform.
Speaker 2: Okay, do super need reform? I guess there'd be a
Speaker 2: lot of people listening saying, well, you know, sit and
Speaker 2: forgets the best way to deal with this. So, I
Speaker 2: mean you've just said that the Liberal position going forward,
Speaker 2: and this is I think sound and right and good,
Speaker 2: is that lower taxes. Is the mantrate, not higher. Now,
Speaker 2: if that is the principal objective of the Liberal Party
Speaker 2: with you as shadow treasurer, doubling the concession or rate
Speaker 2: from fifteen to thirty percent for those with over three
Speaker 2: million in assets would automatically be ruled out, won't it,
Speaker 2: because that's that's higher tax? So why is there still
Speaker 2: a bit of equivocation here ted about what might happen?
Speaker 3: Well, let's wait to see whether or not Jim Chalmers
Speaker 3: and the Labor Party are prepared to compromise on anything. Michael, again,
Speaker 3: our principle of you know, but I.
Speaker 1: My question is what is there to.
Speaker 3: Company we else to talk about? Is that what you mean? Now?
Speaker 1: What is there to compromise on?
Speaker 2: I mean, if the first two things and no goes
Speaker 2: and good on your saying that, but the unrealized and
Speaker 2: the non indexation. The only thing quote unquote to compromise
Speaker 2: is increasing tax on super portfolios with over three million
Speaker 2: in assets.
Speaker 1: So that's a tax hike.
Speaker 2: You've just said the principle the bedrock of view, a
Speaker 2: shadow treasure is lower tack.
Speaker 3: So what's the compromise, Well, it depends what he might
Speaker 3: be prepared to bring to the table. Candidly, I'll be
Speaker 3: surprised so far by his words publicly if he's prepared
Speaker 3: to compromise on anything, Michael. And if that's the case,
Speaker 3: well there's no idea to be done.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 3: You know, the one thing that we should be talking
Speaker 3: about when it comes to superannuation is that principle of simplicity.
Speaker 3: I don't know when you last received advice about superannuation,
Speaker 3: but a common piece of feedback I have constantly received
Speaker 3: over the years is how complex the entire system is.
Speaker 3: So you know, we're not saying that there's no room
Speaker 3: for improvement on super, but what we are saying is
Speaker 3: labor super innuation tax is super big, super bad, and
Speaker 3: we should be fighting against it. That reason, I want
Speaker 3: to compromise and cave in. Sure, more than happy to
Speaker 3: sit down and talk about how we can reform super.
Speaker 2: Okay, you said earlier it was a tax scrab wrapped
Speaker 2: up in a lie with a bow added by doctor
Speaker 2: Charmill's or words to that effect. Well, that's of course
Speaker 2: tream but of course it was all of that before
Speaker 2: May three. So why didn't the Lib's character shreds during
Speaker 2: the campaign.
Speaker 3: Well, we should have gone harder, and we didn't, Michael,
Speaker 3: I'd like to be able to come up with a good,
Speaker 3: solid reason. One of the early lessons learned as we
Speaker 3: continue to review what happened on the third of May,
Speaker 3: is that we should have gone harder on this one.
Speaker 3: And I say that not pointing the finger by the
Speaker 3: way I put my hand up to saying me too,
Speaker 3: I should have gone harder on this one. We all
Speaker 3: should have. But here we are, and we've got to
Speaker 3: make sure that we do everything now to call out
Speaker 3: the problems this the flaws, what it means to not
Speaker 3: just people today, but young people as they advance through
Speaker 3: their careers, they collect money into their savings. They two
Speaker 3: are going to be stung. We need to call it out,
Speaker 3: we need to fight it. But sure if Jim Chalmers
Speaker 3: and Labor are prepared to compromise, more than appy to
Speaker 3: have a conversation.
Speaker 2: Because it just finally that the theory doing the drownds
Speaker 2: is that the reason the Liberals didn't call this out
Speaker 2: is because behind the scenes they would have been more
Speaker 2: than happy to have the additional revenue raised to go
Speaker 2: to treasury so they can fund promises. Now see, when
Speaker 2: you're talking about compromises and all of this, rather than
Speaker 2: just saying no, we're going to have no part of
Speaker 2: this at all, that theory gains a little credence in
Speaker 2: some people's minds.
Speaker 3: You see, Oh, Michael, not a chance in the world
Speaker 3: if we had won the election, would we be taking
Speaker 3: forward labour superannuation tax? Not at all. And that's never
Speaker 3: been our position. I think what is a fair cop
Speaker 3: is we should have done better, We should have done
Speaker 3: more at fighting against this tax. We are where we
Speaker 3: are and what I'm certainly giving you the assurance of
Speaker 3: today is that we have every intention of fighting against
Speaker 3: this tax and we are making it clear upfront about
Speaker 3: the key issues of concern. You know, we're not vacating
Speaker 3: the field and becoming commentators. We are a party of
Speaker 3: government even though we are not in government, and that
Speaker 3: means we need to engage with these policies with the detail.
Speaker 3: That's what we will be doing. And so he is
Speaker 3: hoping that Australia doesn't continue to go down the path
Speaker 3: of becoming poorer and weaker and less productive. But this
Speaker 3: will just be one of many measures I'm sure we're
Speaker 3: going to have to deal with in this term.
Speaker 1: Look good to talk to it, and let's make it
Speaker 1: a regular thing if time permits.
Speaker 2: Thank you for your time, Quice, thanks for Michael, all
Speaker 2: the best, Ted O'Brien, the Shadow Treasurer,