Subjects: Labor’s superannuation shambles; the Prime Minister’s broken promise on superannuation; the Treasurer’s Sunrise shocker on capital gains tax and the family home; cost of living pressures; Indigenous Voice to Parliament; Aston by-election; AUKUS.
E&OE.
PETA CREDLIN:
I’m joined in the studio here in Melbourne by the Opposition Leader Peter Dutton. Well, welcome to my little humble abode here.
PETER DUTTON:
Thank you Peta. Nice to be here on set.
PETA CREDLIN:
This is a government, as I said, not even 12 months old that’s been almost defined by its broken promises.
PETER DUTTON:
Well, I think Australians now are starting to question who is the real Anthony Albanese and obviously who is the real Jim Chalmers. I mean we saw the real Jim Chalmers on television this morning arguing what’s really going on in his thinking and that is tax on the family home – CGT. They’ve obviously put out this shopping list, this hit list of different areas of taxation concession. He was forced to go back out by the Prime Minister to clean up the interviews – and that was the fake Jim Chalmers you saw. So, I think people got a real insight into the government in the last 24 hours.
There’s obviously a very significant battle going on between the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, which you know, I mean that’s happened in the past, to be fair; but you can’t go to an election promising that there’ll be no changes on one of the biggest assets that people own and that will set them up for retirement, and now they’re talking about the family home. You can’t go promising one thing before the election and then within months just completely betraying the trust that the Australian public’s put in you.
PETA CREDLIN:
I made the point earlier in the show, and you know this better than anyone; Expenditure Review Committee, is Treasury papers. They don’t just appear overnight. This wasn’t a frolic in a speech last week. That list of the Capital Gains Tax, people’s homes, all of those things coming out with yesterday’s announcement on super. This was premeditated. This has all the hallmarks of that Peter Garrett line, ‘promise anything, just get into government and you can change it all’. It’s clear this was intended and it’s really kicked off a class war. So the pressure’s now on the Opposition. Are you going to oppose it?
PETER DUTTON:
We are going to oppose it. Frankly, I don’t care whether people have got a small or a big balance in their superannuation, the fact is that they worked hard for it. It’s their money. They sacrificed and put that money into a superannuation account and they did it according to the law, Peta. They did it on financial advice from their accountant or their financial adviser. They put money into super to provide for their own retirement so they didn’t have to draw down on a pension. And they’ve been, I think, just completely and utterly dudded by this government where the rules have changed.
I think the basic principle is that if people have invested according to the law, they’ve put money in – in fact we’ve incentivised them, different governments to put money into superannuation, so it’s difficult then, and we penalise people so that they can’t pull the money out of superannuation in a big chunk – and then we change the taxation arrangements whilst the money’s stuck in there; I think that is unfair and I think the basic principle should be that if you’re going to make changes, make them prospectively, take them to an election…
PETA CREDLIN:
I think that’s the difference isn’t it?…
PETER DUTTON:
It is.
PETA CREDLIN:
…Previously when Howard said never ever on the GST. He changed his mind, he took it to the ’98 election…
PETER DUTTON:
That’s exactly right.
PETA CREDLIN:
…They’re going to legislate this now. And whilst $3 million might sound like a big balance, when you’re 20 or 30 years off retirement and it’s not indexed, $3 million is going to catch up to ordinary people pretty soon.
PETER DUTTON:
I think that’s right. I mean if you think of 10 or 15, 20 years time, $3 million that’s not indexed, or if they come after the next rung – I mean they say, I don’t think it’s going to raise anything like this, but they’re talking about $2 billion a year that they can raise in the extra taxes on people with super – when that’s not enough for Labor, they’ll come after the next rung and then they’ll go the next rung down from that. So it’s three million, it’s one and a half, it’s one. They just have this view that it’s the industry funds money, that it’s a pool of money, a honeypot as Stephen Jones pointed out for them to use on their pet projects. Labor will ramp up spending at a time when they shouldn’t be in the next budget in May and they’ve obviously realised that they need to find the money from somewhere.
To your point, I mean these things don’t just come overnight, you’re talking months and months for Treasury to cost all of this up. They had a budget in October, they were elected in May, so Treasury would have been on the budget from day one and I suspect that the Labor Party has walked in with this wish list, given it to Treasury and said ‘cost it up as soon as you can’. They’ve got it now and I don’t know what else they’ve got installed in this budget, but the Aston by-election, for example, has been bought on with great haste and I suspect it’s because…
PETA CREDLIN:
There is pain coming.
PETER DUTTON:
…there’s a lot in this budget that’s really going to hit middle families, including in areas like Aston right between the eyes at a time when they can least afford it.
PETA CREDLIN:
Are you going to win Aston?
PETER DUTTON:
I think we can win Aston, but I think it’s very tight. We’ve got a successful…
PETA CREDLIN:
Labor like to say you’re unpopular in Melbourne, but you’re down here campaigning again aren’t you?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, I’ve been in Aston more times than the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister made his intent clear in relation to Aston in the last budget, the first opportunity to show that they cared for Aston, that they had some regard for it, they cut five infrastructure projects that we had funded when we were in government. So, that was the first act of the Prime Minister in relation to Aston. But by-elections are always tough. Alan Tudge was a popular local member, worked hard and we’ve got a great candidate in Roshena Campbell. She was out door knocking the day after she was preselected and I think in a by-election people are really looking for somebody who can be a local champion for them, a good local member, and I think she ticks those boxes.
PETA CREDLIN:
We talk about the Voice a lot here on the show. A lot of people are concerned, even when they have sympathy towards the arguments from the Prime Minister that they’re just not going to be information. The news out today that big tech is starting to pull information from the ‘No’ campaign, the weighting of taxpayer funds towards the ‘Yes’ campaign. I’ve watched where you’ve been in the last few months. You’ve done a lot of hard yards getting out to these remote communities. What are they telling you is at the forefront of their mind wanting from Canberra? Is it the Voice?
PETER DUTTON:
Well Peta, in some communities they’ve got great success. Up in East Arnhem Land – and you’ve been up there before – they’ve got employment programs, they’re using the royalty money to build roads and infrastructure, they’ve got a good health system. They don’t want to be disrupted by a Voice. I mean they support a Voice, they made that very clear, but they don’t want a Voice that is going to disrupt their local decision making. They’ve got Dilak which essentially is the four clans coming together, almost a Cabinet, a mini government. They make decisions in their local area. The Voice has the potential to override the local Indigenous Elders voice, and so people are understandably – even in the communities – asking for detail.
In some other communities, in Leonora for example, where we went in WA, huge issues around alcohol and violence etc., domestic violence, abuse of children, all of that playing out there. The Voice is the furthest thing from their mind. When you speak to the Indigenous women there on the ground, they want an end to the violence, they want the grog bans brought back in place and they’re much more practical about getting the outcomes that they want in their community. There are a lot of Indigenous leaders I’ve got to say, as I move around though, when the meetings are over, pull you aside and say, ‘look, you’re dead right asking for the detail because we’ve got no idea how it’s going to work’, and if you’re getting that from Indigenous leaders, and a lot of them, frankly who, I think there’s a rising level of frustration with the way in which the Prime Minister’s approached this debate. The sort of the blurting out at Garma of the words, now Frank Brennan and others have come out and said it’s not going to be…
PETA CREDLIN:
All the way through Cabinet government.
PETER DUTTON:
Exactly right. So, no engagement with us through any of that process, and I think that’s why Australians are asking – even if they’ve got good intent, maybe an inclination – they’re asking for the detail because they don’t want another layer of bureaucracy, they don’t want another ATSIC, they want something that’s going to provide practical solutions, and the questions around the implications of being in the Constitution need to be answered by the Prime Minister.
But again, I mean, the Prime Minister’s been in politics, in Parliament a long time, almost three decades, so he’s tricky with his language. We’ve seen it on to $275. We’ve seen it on the superannuation, as you pointed out in your comments off the top. We’re seeing it in the space of the Voice as well, and I just think people are starting to sniff out another side to the character that maybe they haven’t seen so far.
PETA CREDLIN:
Just quickly, you went very strong on some comments today about submarines. You don’t think we should go with the British build, we should go the US build. I’m interested to know, has the government given you a briefing?
PETER DUTTON:
No, not as yet, and I hope that we get one soon because whilst there was short notice given to the then opposition when we brokered the AUKUS deal with the United States and the United Kingdom, there were security reasons for that. I don’t think there’s any purpose in delaying briefing the opposition. I hope the government can do that soon so that we’ve got all of the detail.
The comments I made today are not a reflection on the Brits who are an incredible partner, a reliable partner and a much needed partner. My judgement is that the United States has much more headroom within their industrial capacity. They have the ability to open up a new production line, to deliver a submarine in a quicker time than the Brits can.
What I worry most about with the talk, the chatter around going with the British model is that it’s a new design and that’s the problem we’ve had. It’s exactly the problem we had in frigates at the moment. The problem that we had in relation to the French, it’s a new design. The beauty of the Virginia-class with the US is that it’s a proven design. You can start construction on it tomorrow. And if we’re waiting for a new design it takes the first, you know, maybe two, three, four submarines off the production line before you get it right. There are inevitable delays and we need those vessels as quickly as possible. So, that’s my logic and the advice that I had when I was Minister for Defence was that there were capacity constraints within the British system with Rolls-Royce and Barrow-in-Furness – it’s no slight against them – we’ve got to act in our best interests and we’ll support whatever decision the government makes, but that’s where I think the decision should land.
PETA CREDLIN:
I’ve got to go, I’m amount of time.
PETER DUTTON:
Thank you
[ends]