Speaker 1: Prime and Stuff the Labor Party Central Politics with Dennis Shanahan.
Speaker 2: Each weekend. I'm honored, delighted to talk to Dennis Shanahan,
Speaker 2: national editor of the Australian newspaper, who I'm delighted to
Speaker 2: say is on the line. Dennis. Maybe unkindly, it was
Speaker 2: suggested a week or two back that maybe even longer
Speaker 2: than that, that many Canberrans when they get given the
Speaker 2: chance of a long weekend head to New South Wales,
Speaker 2: particularly the South coast. I know there are times where
Speaker 2: you end up on the South coast of New South Wales,
Speaker 2: but I'm almost intrigued to know how things are in
Speaker 2: Canberra this morning. So tell me where you are and
Speaker 2: tell me what it's like.
Speaker 1: My friend, Well, I am in Canberra. I do go
Speaker 1: to the coast, Yes, to the Canberra beach right, Yes,
Speaker 1: and it is winter right, I'm looking out the wind blowing,
Speaker 1: there is rain and the last few leaves are falling.
Speaker 1: So you know, I'm a great advocate of camera. I
Speaker 1: love camera, but I have to admit when it's twinter yes.
Speaker 2: Indeed. Now, both sides of politics seem divided over this
Speaker 2: proposal to include texts on unrealized capital gains for some
Speaker 2: super innovation funds, with Jim Chalmers wanting to forge your
Speaker 2: head with what's becoming an increasingly difficult political position. Now
Speaker 2: through the week, mate, I saw the Prime Minister saying, oh,
Speaker 2: you know, this has been out in about for two years.
Speaker 2: But the problem for the Prime Minister is he couldn't
Speaker 2: get it across the line. Now it's likely to be
Speaker 2: across the line somehow. So it is a real thing.
Speaker 2: So excuse our interest in it, but taxing people on
Speaker 2: gains that haven't realized. And I don't care what the
Speaker 2: government says in defense of this. Once they do it
Speaker 2: in one asset class, who's to say, and the Greens,
Speaker 2: you know, they're going to have to support the government
Speaker 2: to get this through and they want negative gearing. Look,
Speaker 2: who's to say that the Greens won't say, right out,
Speaker 2: let's do this on another asset class, like your second
Speaker 2: or third rental property. This has got absolute hair or labor,
Speaker 2: doesn't it.
Speaker 1: It does. It's a big brown dog. And the thing
Speaker 1: is what we've got here is something that, as the
Speaker 1: Prime Minister has said, has been around for two years.
Speaker 1: This was around long before the election. The government got
Speaker 1: a huge mandate or a huge majority. In any case,
Speaker 1: at the election they control the Upper House with no
Speaker 1: problem at all. They can argue, as Jim Charms is arguing,
Speaker 1: we've had it out there all the time on these
Speaker 1: unrealized tax on superannuation also not indexed by the way,
Speaker 1: and only on self managed funds with totals of more
Speaker 1: than three million. But that, as you're saying, the principle
Speaker 1: involved here of taxing something on unrealized gains, that is,
Speaker 1: you pay tax on paper games. So someone says, oh,
Speaker 1: your property is now worth four million more, You've got
Speaker 1: to pay tax on four million although you haven't got it.
Speaker 1: You have to end up sending selling the property to
Speaker 1: get the money to pay the tax on the earnings
Speaker 1: you haven't earned. Really is a nonsense. But what we're
Speaker 1: seeing politically here, I think is a lot of confusion
Speaker 1: and a lack of people to grasp reality. Now. When
Speaker 1: the Prime Minister said this week I'm prepared to deal
Speaker 1: with the Coalition on a range of issues, including superannuation,
Speaker 1: he meant it because he knows that the reason that
Speaker 1: this superannuation tax in any form hasn't gone through in
Speaker 1: the past two years is because the government didn't control
Speaker 1: the Senate. And guess what, they still don't control the Senate,
Speaker 1: so this still has to be negotiated. People have were saying, oh, look,
Speaker 1: you know they've got this huge majority, just stand aside
Speaker 1: let them. No, it doesn't work like that. The Senate
Speaker 1: is still there as a break on the House of Representatives,
Speaker 1: and Anthony Albanez he knows this. He also is in
Speaker 1: his second term starting to say, well, you know, we're
Speaker 1: going to have to get some things through here, and
Speaker 1: he is signaled to the Coalition, I'm prepared to work
Speaker 1: with you, and he actually said rather than the Grooms,
Speaker 1: he doesn't want to do with the Greens. Now. What
Speaker 1: we then had was Jim Charmers coming out the next
Speaker 1: day and say, oh, no, I don't think the coalition's
Speaker 1: fair income. Because Ted O'Brien, the shadow Treasurer, had said
Speaker 1: he was prepared to negotiate on this. So then the
Speaker 1: treasurer said, no, not faired income. Then a whole lot
Speaker 1: of people in the coalition came out and said no,
Speaker 1: we're not going to cop this either. So we've got
Speaker 1: Jim Charmers and a whole lot of people on the
Speaker 1: coalition side saying no, no deal. And then the Coalition
Speaker 1: came down said no, our position is again, don't realize
Speaker 1: capital games tax and against and for indexation. So the
Speaker 1: positions are clear. What we don't have is somebody saying, well,
Speaker 1: hold on just a minute. If this has to pass
Speaker 1: and there is a mandate to pass it, there's no
Speaker 1: doubt about it. It is better. And this is what
Speaker 1: former governors of the Reserve Bank, former tax secretaries of
Speaker 1: the Treasury Department, in fact still huge liberal donors and
Speaker 1: former liberal politicians all saying to the coalition pass it
Speaker 1: in a better form. They're literally saying the lesser of
Speaker 1: two evils, wake up, smell the coffee. The government has
Speaker 1: a huge majority in the House. They can deal purely
Speaker 1: with the Greens in the Senate and get things through.
Speaker 1: This is an issue where the Coalition needs to stand
Speaker 1: up and say we will try and regain some credibility
Speaker 1: and bargain for the best result. On superannuation and increase tax.
Speaker 1: There is a mandate for increased tax on some superannuation,
Speaker 1: but you can do it better. This is the same
Speaker 1: thing that happened with the super profits tax on mining.
Speaker 1: The government pushed it through and by the way, Jim
Speaker 1: Chalmers was.
Speaker 2: Working for Wayne Wayneford. That's right.
Speaker 1: They tried to push it through. It was a complete disaster.
Speaker 1: It was a badly formed because it hadn't involved the industry,
Speaker 1: and then in the end they had to just dump
Speaker 1: it completely and change it completely. You know how much
Speaker 1: it gets about ten thousand dollars a year. It was
Speaker 1: meant to get ten billion dollars a year now. So
Speaker 1: what we're looking at here, I think, is at the
Speaker 1: moment where Australian politicians need to grasp the reality. And
Speaker 1: this is particularly the Treasurer and some of those in
Speaker 1: the Coalition who don't seem to realize things have changed.
Speaker 1: Labor is in power for three years, the Greens have
Speaker 1: sole balance of power in the Senate, and the two
Speaker 1: major parties need to regain some credibility. Yes we need revenue,
Speaker 1: Yes there is a mandate to get it. It should
Speaker 1: be done in the best way.
Speaker 2: So the coalition could simply say we're going to try
Speaker 2: and get a better deal. We sometimes in life you've
Speaker 2: got to hold your nose and do something you don't
Speaker 2: like doing. We're going to hold our nose, nome we've
Speaker 2: got a slightly better deal. But I'll tell you what
Speaker 2: in three years, these thing's gonski and people go fair enough,
Speaker 2: we know where you stand. But this on again, off again.
Speaker 2: Oh no, we're not going to do a deal. They've
Speaker 2: got no they've got no clout, they've got absolutely nothing.
Speaker 2: They've had their pants pulled down and they're acting like
Speaker 2: they're tough guys. Give me a break.
Speaker 1: Definitely, I mean they have no embarrassment at all this.
Speaker 1: And the point here is that ten O'Brien has said
Speaker 1: we won't shift on taxing unrealized capital gains. That is
Speaker 1: a perfectly good principle. There are a lot of people
Speaker 1: in the Labor Party you don't believe in it. And
Speaker 1: as you pointed out, Luke, this is the sort of
Speaker 1: thing that will spread like cancer through the tax system.
Speaker 1: All of a sudden, people's properties will be involved. There'll
Speaker 1: be more general capital gains, tax on unrealized capital gains.
Speaker 1: This is what this will be the beginning of it.
Speaker 1: It will have a bad effect on superannuation, not to
Speaker 1: mention farmers and businesses and small businesses and investors. Yes,
Speaker 1: the government says it's only affecting a few people, but
Speaker 1: without indexation and with this principle of unrealized capital gains.
Speaker 1: An estimated number of people affected at the moment would
Speaker 1: be eighty to one hundred thousand, maybe one hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty thousand, but it goes to hundreds of thousands over
Speaker 1: a few years because it's not index. And let's face it,
Speaker 1: everyone thinks, oh, three million dollars, that's a big that's
Speaker 1: a lot of superannuation. Well, no, it won't be in
Speaker 1: tea his time. It'll be average. The cost of the
Speaker 1: average house at the moment. Yes, in australia's a million dollars.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, yeah, ex excellent point. Excellent point. Sorry, No,
Speaker 2: that's that's where that's where you say. It's not where
Speaker 2: it starts where it's where it ends up. And that's
Speaker 2: the excellent point you've made. Now I'm going to have
Speaker 2: to take a break Downnis, because I think you and
Speaker 2: I have a bit to talk about two words, Donald
Speaker 2: Trump after this eighteen to ten Dennis Shanahan with me
Speaker 2: is he is every Saturday morning, Dennis will talk about
Speaker 2: Donald Trump and albow in a moment. But I think
Speaker 2: you'd be interested as I'm sure, well you might even
Speaker 2: well know this, but I'm sure my listeners would as well.
Speaker 2: That there's been some contribution into the Trump Musk fiasco
Speaker 2: by a lawyer, David Showen, a criminal defense lawyer who
Speaker 2: represented Epstein before he died in police custody in twenty
Speaker 2: nine ten. Now, of course, what has happened is Musk
Speaker 2: has gone on Twitter or x and he's made mention
Speaker 2: that in the Jeffrey Epstein file says mentioned of Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: I think Musk referred to this as time to drop
Speaker 2: the really big bomb. He said. The real reason the
Speaker 2: Epstein files haven't been released is because I named Trump,
Speaker 2: and then we get today from this David Showen, I
Speaker 2: can authoritatively, unequivocally and definitively say that Epstein had no
Speaker 2: information to hurt President Trump. I specifically asked him. So
Speaker 2: that's from the lawyer working with Epstein before he died. Anyway,
Speaker 2: that's part of this sideshow. I mean, good luck Albow
Speaker 2: dealing with that. If he's in the room and there's cameras,
Speaker 2: who knows what Donald Trump will throw at the feet
Speaker 2: of our prime minister. But tariffs will be back at
Speaker 2: top of the agenda with next week's meeting in Canada. Mate,
Speaker 2: we're stealing beef topping that list.
Speaker 1: They certainly will be. And look that is I have
Speaker 1: been in a press conference in the White House with
Speaker 1: an Australian Prime Minister, Scott Morrison. We went in, it
Speaker 1: was just meant to be a quick photo shoot, and
Speaker 1: Donald Trump talked for half an hour. This is the
Speaker 1: danger for leaders now appearing with the President of the
Speaker 1: United States. Ask President Zelenski, it doesn't matter who's there.
Speaker 1: He will say anything. He could get things wrong. He
Speaker 1: says things wrong. And this is an exact point on
Speaker 1: the tariffs. Now. Originally, when the tariff first came up,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump specifically mentioned Australian beef producers and said Australia
Speaker 1: was not allowing as US beef into Australia because of tariffs,
Speaker 1: and that they were responding now that wasn't true. Allowed
Speaker 1: the import of American beef if they can prove the
Speaker 1: biosecurity standards that they demand of Australian beef, and that
Speaker 1: is that you can after mad cow disease and a
Speaker 1: range of other diseases, that you can prove that your
Speaker 1: cattle that you are exporting, whether you killed or alive,
Speaker 1: have been where you can actually say the farm they've
Speaker 1: come from. Now in the US they can't do that.
Speaker 1: Even if it's butchered, it may have come from Mexico,
Speaker 1: it may have come from Canada, and there is still
Speaker 1: a danger of mad cow disease in both Mexico and Canada.
Speaker 1: And so if we are going to accept US beef,
Speaker 1: then they have to demonstrate that it's a bio security
Speaker 1: issue and that it's safe and that comes from the US,
Speaker 1: not from Mexico or Canada. If they can't guarantee that,
Speaker 1: we won't let that in. Now, this became an issue
Speaker 1: this week as tariffs raised again and Donald Trump put
Speaker 1: up steel tariffs again, and at first there was a
Speaker 1: big outcry from farmers. Anthony Albinezi responded quickly and said, look,
Speaker 1: we are not going to give in on biosecurity. We're
Speaker 1: not going to give on the beef. That is not
Speaker 1: a tariff issue. We're not giving in on it. And
Speaker 1: so he realized the danger there and worked very quickly. However,
Speaker 1: next week, in the so called sidelines of the G
Speaker 1: seven meeting, the Prime Minister is due to meet Donald
Speaker 1: Trump and have a discussion. Tariffs will be part of that,
Speaker 1: a big part of that, and Australia has been trying
Speaker 1: for some time now since the introduction of the first tariff,
Speaker 1: which included tariff's on penguins in Macquarie Island. We're trying
Speaker 1: to get a better deal on Australian steel and generally
Speaker 1: for Australia, but we're using mins critical minerals as a
Speaker 1: bargaining chip that we're saying we won't give way on
Speaker 1: our pharmaceutical schemes. We won't give way that's going to
Speaker 1: increase the cost of medicines on our PBS, and we
Speaker 1: won't give way on beef. So there's two areas there
Speaker 1: where the Prime Minister has already said we're not shifting.
Speaker 1: And there are a whole range of other areas where
Speaker 1: the US, sorry, the UK and the US have come
Speaker 1: to agreements. Canada has had an agreement. So there are
Speaker 1: a few countries, and this week the US sent out
Speaker 1: a letter saying come to us with your best deal.
Speaker 1: The deadlines now. So next week we will see exactly
Speaker 1: what the Prime Minister can get out of Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: if anything, using our store mineral of critical minerals now. Interestingly,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump said during the week that critical minerals were
Speaker 1: already a key issue in Ukraine because Ukraine has critical minerals,
Speaker 1: and that was also part of his discussion with Jijiping
Speaker 1: of China. So critical minerals are the key that we
Speaker 1: can use to get some room. But we shouldn't give
Speaker 1: way on beef, and which is a biosecurity issue, not
Speaker 1: a terrif issue.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because we've made mining the enemy. So all of
Speaker 2: a sudden we've got a backflip again, and this time
Speaker 2: around critical. It's madness I think made. I actually think
Speaker 2: in the Oval Office or elsewhere that the Trump wild
Speaker 2: card is to say to Albo, Hey, listen, mate, any
Speaker 2: chance you can pull your weight in defense? Any chance
Speaker 2: he could do something because I'm not sending our young
Speaker 2: men and women and you're back and cry, You've got
Speaker 2: to do your own heavy lifting. I think we're very vulnerable.
Speaker 2: There are we?
Speaker 1: Oh? We are? Now this is a big question. This
Speaker 1: is a second big question for Anthony Albert. Now the
Speaker 1: US at the Singapore Dialogue actually asked Richard mail Miles
Speaker 1: face to face for an increase in defense spending a
Speaker 1: three point five percent of GDP. Now, the Prime Minister
Speaker 1: and Richard Miles as Defense Minister, said where we are
Speaker 1: up for this conversation? He didn't confirm the three point
Speaker 1: five percent figure that came out of the US. But
Speaker 1: what we've actually got is clearly the US saying to us,
Speaker 1: and they've been saying to us all along and all
Speaker 1: their other allies, particularly in Europe, that we have to
Speaker 1: pull our own weight. We've had the US warning that
Speaker 1: there's possibility of a Chinese mainland China invasion of Taiwan
Speaker 1: being imminent and that this could occur before twenty twenty seven,
Speaker 1: and so there is huge pressure in the region on this.
Speaker 1: The Prime Minister has been to Indonesia and talked about
Speaker 1: defence Singapore likewise, Now I think what we have to do,
Speaker 1: and I think this is what the Prime Minister could
Speaker 1: be doing. He could be waiting till he sees Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: And then because Donald Trump's very keen about talking about
Speaker 1: not having any aces or any cards or any Trumps,
Speaker 1: and then the Prime Minister can say, well, as a
Speaker 1: matter of fact, we're looking at doing this ourselves and
Speaker 1: not being seen to be doing at the behest of
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, because he's very keen not to be seen
Speaker 1: to be doing that. But he's keeping his powder dry.
Speaker 1: People who say, oh, he hasn't you know, is rejected. No,
Speaker 1: he hasn't rejected the calls. He has kept his powder
Speaker 1: dry and when the moment comes, he can then see
Speaker 1: whether it'll be enough.
Speaker 2: All right, mate, have a great weekend. Love that a
Speaker 2: chat to stay well. See you see Dennis Shanahan back
Speaker 2: next week.