16 August 2024
Subjects: Labor’s visa and immigration policy shambles; the Prime Minister’s weak leadership; the PM’s misleading Question Time shocker; the Albanese Government’s plan to tax unrealised gains; alcohol excise; Labor’s cost of living crisis.
E&OE.
TOM ELLIOTT:
Alright, well our next guest was called a ‘racist’ in Federal Parliament recently.
Peter Dutton, good morning.
PETER DUTTON:
Good morning Tom.
TOM ELLIOTT:
Why were you called a racist?
PETER DUTTON:
I think because the person who used that disgraceful phrase wasn’t able to intellectually argue against what it was that we were talking about – that was, how do we provide security settings in our country that will keep Australians safe? It was a very serious debate about the Government’s change of arrangements for allowing people to come in from a war zone of Gaza, an area controlled by a listed terrorist organisation. The Government’s brought people in on a tourist visa, so no checks have really taken place. We’ve also known that face-to-face interviews weren’t even conducted.
So, if you’re called a racist for questioning why that happened, particularly when no other country in the world has done it, then I think, frankly, it reflects more on that person than me.
TOM ELLIOTT:
So is that really the case? We’re not giving them refugee visas like we gave people from Syria a generation ago, you’re saying they’re just let in as tourists?
PETER DUTTON:
They came as tourist visas. This was a decision made by Minister Giles. Now, he’s now been sacked, but the Prime Minister misled Parliament this week in relation to the matter, and I think it’s very serious.
We’re a big-hearted nation, we bring a lot of people in through the Refugee and Humanitarian Programme, we’re a multicultural society, we’re very fortunate because for many generations we’ve brought people in from all over the world, but our country is best served when we’ve got a well managed migration programme. It requires tough decisions, but as you point out, in relation to the Syrians, we brought in 12,000 people from Syria, but we put our people into the field, we had face interviews in third countries, including Jordan and including in Northern Iraq, for example. In some cases, it took over 12 months before a visa was issued and then they came on a humanitarian visa, and people had settled well. When you bring people in on a tourist visa, it’s like they’re coming from New Zealand or the United Kingdom, and I think it’s a complete abrogation of the Government’s responsibility.
TOM ELLIOTT:
And yet, even the head of ASIO, Mike Burgess, I think his name is, said, ‘oh no, well, even if you support Hamas that need not disqualify you from coming to Australia’, which I found that was an extraordinary statement.
PETER DUTTON:
Well, that’s because that’s now the Government’s policy. Again, the Prime Minister wouldn’t answer questions about this during the week, but the Government’s changed its policy.
Imagine if Paul Keating, or John Howard, or Julia Gillard, or Scott Morrison, had have said, ‘Well, we’re going to allow people to come in from Iraq, or Afghanistan who are sympathisers with Al-Qaeda, or Saddam Hussein, or with ISIL, or ISIS. I mean they would have been smashed and rightly so.
This is an unbelievable position the Government has adopted, and I think it’s all because of political purposes. They’re trying to win votes in Western Sydney for Tony Burke and Chris Bowen, and they’re sacrificing our national security in the process, and they should be called out for it.
TOM ELLIOTT:
Sorry, the head of ASIO is Mike Burgess, not Richard Burgess.
Yeah, well I mentioned – you may not have seen this, but a group called the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research back in March, did a survey of Palestinians’ attitudes towards Hamas, and in Gaza 71 per cent said they supported Hamas’ decision to launch that terrible offensive against Israel back in October. Weirdly in the West Bank it was even higher.
So, alright, well there is that. So do we know how many are going to be let in?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, visas have been given to 3,000 people, 1,300 people have arrived already. We know about 500 of the 1,300 have applied for protection. So it will be probably the reality that those people will go on to become Australian citizens, but again, this is why we don’t allow boats to arrive in Australia because once people are on the Australian mainland, you can make claims, you can then go to the High Court and have injunctions taken against the Government when the Government attempts to remove people.
I think it’s a very unfortunate situation because we should be helping people in their hour of need, but at the right time, and in a way that suits the best interests of our country and can keep Australians safe.
TOM ELLIOTT:
Alright. Well on a completely separate issue, but it does concern the interests of the country. I spoke with Jeff Kennett, the former Victorian Premier, a few days ago. He was one of 20 – I think it was – eminent Australians who signed an open letter saying that all gambling ads should be banned. Now John Howard and Malcolm Turnbull, both former Liberal Prime Ministers, signed that letter too. What’s your view? Do you think we should ban all gambling ads?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, we’re just waiting to see what the Government is proposing. We had a proposal that we put forward last year, where we had a significant reduction in the number of ads, particularly around times when kids were watching games and in the run up to games.
I think it’s an abomination when you sit there with your kids watching footy on a Friday night, or over the weekend, that there’s a conversation around their favourite players, or their favourite teams, it’s not about form, or it’s not about what’s happened at training that week, or where they are on the ladder – the conversation’s around someone’s multi, or what’s happening with the odds on a particular player or team; and in some cases they’re happy for their team to lose because they’ve backed a multi that involves the other team.
So I think the culture that’s been driven here, Tom, is a real problem and changes do need to be made. So we’ll see what the Government has to say about how that can work, how they can work with the codes, how they can work with the free to air companies as well, and then we can respond from there.
TOM ELLIOTT:
Yeah, see, the big problem is, so a couple days ago, I interviewed the CEO of the AFL, Andrew Dillon, and I asked him this same question. And of course, the AFL – like I’m sure the NRL is the same – is treading a difficult path because gambling ads do make up a big proportion of the ads that are shown during game time, and there’s a lot of money that comes from them and the AFL is sort of reluctant to give up that money. Anyway, we’ll see.
PETER DUTTON:
No, no, I’m sure.
TOM ELLIOTT:
Now, here’s another thing – Robert Gottliebsen, the finance columnist writing in The Australian today, says that the Government’s plan to tax super funds on their unrealised gains above $3 million might soon be headed for the chopper. He said that the Upper House is going to reject it. I’ve never understood this tax. Like how you can tax people on a profit that they haven’t actually made is beyond me. Do you think it’s going to be changed or stopped?
PETER DUTTON:
I hope it’ll be stopped, and we’ve taken a position that we’re opposed to it, because as you say, how do you say to somebody who’s got, say a farming operation and their family farm is held in the superannuation fund, or if you’ve got the local family and their deli, the building in which the deli operates or their small business, that that asset is held in the superannuation fund – and sometimes that can be for protection of that asset – they don’t sell the building, or they don’t sell the farm, but the tax office says, ‘Well, the building is worth $3 million this year and it’s worth $3.2 next year, so pay tax on the $200,000 gain’. But you haven’t actually sold the business so you haven’t realised the gain. So there’s a huge negative impact on cash flow.
Look, I just think it’s another Albo special where they haven’t thought through the consequences. It has a negative impact. I think Robert Gottliebsen’s a great writer and contributor – he’s thought about this. I think David Pocock and others have come out against it as well.
It’s also the case that if you’ve got money in your super fund and you bought shares that have gone through the roof for no other reason than a good decision to invest in that company, or they’re Commonwealth Bank shares that you’ve held for 50 years and they’ve done well and that’s pushed you over that $3 million mark, well, we want people to put money into super and to save for their retirement. We don’t want to be taxing them on an unrealised capital gain. I think the Government’s really botched this and I hope they reverse it.
TOM ELLIOTT:
Yeah. Well, it looks like the Upper House numbers are going to vote it down, so that’s good.
Now, we got an email before from Simon who says he has a question for you. He says, ‘Would you cut the excise on alcohol, or at least freeze it? Pubs are ruined, the cost of a beer in a pub is ludicrous’. Is that something you would look at? And of course, you know, I think for years under the Howard Government, the petrol excise was frozen. It’s now going up again. But what about the beer excise?
PETER DUTTON:
We’re talking to the AHA about that – the Australian Hotels Association – at the moment about that. There’s a real problem within, not just hotels, but cafes, restaurants, and hospitality more generally, where in an economic time that we’re in at the moment, people are tightening, their belts are spending less, and we’re going to see a lot of people lose their jobs or have hours cut back within those industries if there’s not assistance in some form. So this is one option that you could look at.
I agree with his – I agree with the general point and, Tom, you cite what happened in the Howard days. The excise continues to build more quickly if it’s indexed, because it’s off a bigger base each year and if you look at the petrol excise at the moment, it’s either just tipped over 50 cents a litre or it’s about to – that’s a lot of money. So, there are ways in which we can provide support to families and freezing excise of either beer, or of petrol – they’re two consumptions that feature in people’s weekly budgets.
So, I think there’s a sensible argument that people are putting at the moment, and we’re happy to hear that. Again, we’ll make an announcement in relation to some of our policies closer to the election, but it is ridiculous if it’s getting to a point where it’s making up such a big part of the price that you’re paying for a schooner of beer, or for a litre of petrol.
TOM ELLIOTT:
Alright. Thank you for your time. Peter Dutton there, Federal Opposition Leader.
[ends]