Subjects: President Biden’s cancelled visit to Australia; Quad Leaders Summit; Labor’s negative gearing shambles; housing; Budget in Reply; Labor’s cost of living crisis; Jobseeker.
E&OE
PETER STEFANOVIC:
Joining us live is the Opposition Leader Peter Dutton. Peter, good to see you. Thanks for your time this morning.
We’ll start off with that breaking news this morning that Joe Biden will not be coming to Australia next week. Your reaction to that?
PETER DUTTON:
Good morning Pete. Well look, obviously it’s disappointing, but completely understanding. There are domestic issues that the President has to attend to and he’d be a welcome guest into our country at any time.
This was going to be an opportunity on a bipartisan basis to welcome him to our country. The AUKUS arrangement is historic. It should be celebrated, it should be expanded upon, and that was part of the Quad discussion, no doubt. So disappointing that he can’t make it, but we understand the reality of the domestic politics in the US.
PETER STEFANOVIC:
Yeah, there was no mention of a replacement, whether it’s Kamala Harris or not, and there are discussions going ahead now with India and Japan too. I mean, can the Quad even go ahead without the United States, in your view?
PETER DUTTON:
Yes of course it can. We’re more used to than ever to speaking to people down the television screen, and there will be plenty of opportunity for him, I suspect, to join the Quad. All of those logistics will be put in place because it’s important that the meeting go ahead.
Obviously, we welcome Prime Minister Modi very warmly to our country. Similarly with Prime Minister Kishida, as well. So, this will be…the Quad is incredibly important for our region and they’re important partners, and I’m sure the US President can join via video.
PETER STEFANOVIC:
So you would hope that that would happen? That it could be done in that way?
PETER DUTTON:
Yes. I presume that’s the arrangement that they’ll make. We’ll wait to hear the detail.
PETER STEFANOVIC:
Sure. Okay. Joe Biden was to sign – this is a final one on this one – Biden was to sign a new defence agreement with PNG to our north, giving American warships and American aircraft unimpeded access in the region. So, I presume that will still go ahead, but he just won’t be there? But do you think China would see this or mark this as some kind of win because we know it doesn’t like the Quad?
PETER DUTTON:
I think in terms of the decisions that the PNG Government make – firstly that’s an issue for them – but they’ve been important allies, partners, family with us for a long period of time. They understand the dynamic within the region at the moment, and the US has been a good ally to PNG and you can understand that for strategic reasons it makes sense to expand that footprint and we would support that and I hope the announcement can still go ahead, but that’ll be an issue for the US and PNG.
PETER STEFANOVIC:
Okay. Anthony Albanese said yesterday that there will be no changes to negative gearing, capital gains as well. Are you convinced by his denials?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, I just think you’ve got a clear split in the Labor Party now. You’ve had multiple statements by Jim Chalmers, the Treasurer, saying that, you know, ‘tax reform is worth nothing unless it includes changes to capital gains and to negative gearing’. Now, when he says ‘changes’, he means an increase in tax or an abolition of any tax arrangements that might confer a benefit on someone.
So, I think it’s dangerous talk because we need more rental stock in the pool. We don’t need less rental houses and don’t forget that Jim Chalmers has just made an announcement in the budget where he halved the tax rate for foreign investors coming in, wanting to build units and accommodation for Australians who are going to rent that accommodation. So, I think they’re speaking out of both sides of their mouth.
But clearly there’s a big divide in the government at the moment and, I mean the reality of the government’s position on taxing an unrealised capital gain – that is before you sell the asset you pay the tax – is not a concept that anybody’s seen in tax law before, and I think it will spook investors, which is exactly the wrong thing that the government should be trying to achieve.
PETER STEFANOVIC:
When you say that there is more stock when it comes to housing, though, is needed and most people will agree with that, the government will then just say, and they have done, why not just get behind it’s housing plan? It’s a simple fix.
PETER DUTTON:
Well Pete, that doesn’t provide any support to the housing stock in Australia when you go out to an auction on a weekend or you’re lining up for a rental property. It’s a giant Ponzi scheme – let’s be very clear about it. The Greens don’t support it, we don’t support it and the houses won’t be delivered.
I mean, the Labor Party promised something like 38 GP super clinics 10 years ago – they still haven’t been built. So, if you’ve got faith in the government building these homes, you know them better than I do, because I just don’t think they have the ability to deliver the houses.
The issue in relation to housing in our country at the moment is one of supply. We need to get more land released at a federal, state and local government level. Environmental protections have locked up land holdings, made it more difficult for that land to be developed and the infrastructure costs are prohibitive. So, if the federal government wants to try and work with the local and state governments, which I think is exactly what should be the priority now, they should state that.
But at the moment there’s a hesitation, particularly from local governments, to release that land because their local communities are in gridlock and people don’t want the extra density.
PETER STEFANOVIC:
Right. Pete, there are question marks this morning over the costings for your marquee policy, which was unveiled in last week’s Budget In Reply. Have you settled on a figure yet?
PETER DUTTON:
Well Pete, a couple of points here. I mean, we announced last June, in fact, but reconfirmed in the October Budget In Reply speech, that we should support changes – as a country we should support changes – to allow people on an age pension and on a veteran pension, if they chose to work more hours, to be able to work those hours and for it not to affect their pension.
It provided a productivity gain, it provided support to people on a fixed income when their costs were going up, their electricity bills, etc. and the government supported that. Now, that’s exactly the same logic that we’ve applied now, by saying that people on a JobSeeker payment should be incentivised to work a bit more so that hopefully it introduces them to a full-time job and that would reduce the number of people on our unemployment lines.
Now the government’s come out, you know, in a silly statement this morning, but the same principle applies to the policy that they adopted from us last year. So, I think if you put the politics aside, what we want to do – in a tight labour market where we’ve got 430,000 job vacancies at the moment – is provide incentive to get more people into those jobs as quickly as we can.
PETER STEFANOVIC:
But do you have a cost though? I mean, there’s discrepancies, some suggesting $700 million figure too low, $2.3 billion too high, the right amount might be somewhere in the middle. Do you do you have an actual figure that you know?
PETER DUTTON:
No, I mean the difference in the costings is around the parameters and the assumptions, and the Parliamentary Budget Office will finalise that work and they’ll look at some of the changes obviously that were made in the budget as well. So, that has to be updated because of the budget announcements, and that’ll be released in due course.
PETER STEFANOVIC:
Okay. Peter Dutton, appreciate your time, as always. We’ll talk soon.
PETER DUTTON:
Thanks Pete, take care.
[ends]