Doorstop interview, Canberra
Subjects: Labor’s proposed taxes on superannuation, George Christensen
EO&E…………………………………………………………
SIMON BIRMINGHAM:
Well another day and another case where Bill Shorten clearly either cannot or will not be upfront and honest with the Australian people about his policies or the impact of his policies. We’ve seen today that Bill Shorten in relation to his super blooper yesterday, was clearly, deliberately seeking to dodge answering questions or being honest about his tax policies. He’s claimed today that he misheard or misspoke in relation to the question and answer that he gave on superannuation yesterday. But let’s look very precisely at what he said yesterday. Yesterday he said we have no plans to increase taxes on superannuation. They were Bill Shorten’s words. We have no plans to increase taxes on superannuation. And yet he has $34 billion dollars’ worth of plans to take more tax in relation to superannuation. $34 billion dollars’ worth of extra tax collection on superannuation that will come from around 800 000 potential self-employed Australians, tradies and others starting businesses looking to get ahead. These are people who ought to be able to save for their retirement. And yet Bill Shorten is coming after their savings in that way. And what he did yesterday was he sought to deny that he was doing so. And he very clearly sought to avoid answering the direct question that was asked of him. And he’s been caught out. And having been caught out. He’s now claiming that somehow he misheard or misspoke. Go back, and look at what he said. It is in direct contrast to the reality of what the Labor Party’s stated policy position is. And this is of course because Bill Shorten is desperate to avoid talking about the $387 billion dollars’ worth of taxes that he will deploy right across the Australian economy. Taxes that will see retirees having less money to spend on buying new electrical goods, or their grandkids presents. Taxes that will see Australian families having less money to save for their retirement or to pay for the family holiday. Taxes that will see Australian businesses have less capacity to invest, to grow, to continue to create jobs for Australians. But it wasn’t just on superannuation where Bill Shorten was caught out today. In relation to Labor’s emissions reduction policy too. It was clear that Bill Shorten was evasive and misleading in his answers. He was asked yet again today about the economic costs of his policies. And Labor relied on claims that Warwick McKibbin’s work, Dr McGibbon’s work backs up that there’s no difference in terms of the impact. But Dr McKibbin himself is being clear stating that his work did not examine the Labor policy. His work did not examine the Labor policy. He has however said that Dr Brian Fisher’s work is highly credible. And what Dr Fisher’s found is that contrary to Bill Shorten’s claim that there’s no impact on the economy of Labor’s emissions reduction target, there is actually over the decade a $472 billion hit to the economy. Growth will be slower. That means fewer jobs lower wages for Australians under Labor’s policy. Mr Shorten was asked a direct question today, of how much would have to be spent by Australian companies buying international permits. And he dodged that question. He refused to say he relied on Australian companies having to buy international permits as his excuse for why it is there would be a lower impact in terms of economic growth.
JOURNALIST:
How much did he say it was?
SIMON BIRMINGHAM:
Well it will clearly have to be many billions of dollars but it’s for Mr Shorten to say what his policy is, it’s his policy to have Australian companies buy international permits. He ought to be honest and actually tell the Australian people how many billions will go offshore, because every dollar that is spent in purchasing international permits by Australian companies is one less dollar for them to spend on Australian jobs, on wages for their employees, on dividends that go into superannuation funds, or indeed on domestic action to reduce emissions themselves.
JOURNALIST:
How is the Coalition going to reduce the spending to GDP ratio to 23.9 per cent as projected in this year’s budget?
SIMON BIRMINGHAM:
Through continuing to develop the policy settings that are there. Through the projections of economic growth that are already outlined in this year’s Budget through the growth in employment. Our government has a strong track record already of being able to contain spending growth while still seeing real growth. And it’s important to note contrary to the lies and claims from the Labor Party, the Budget projections still demonstrate year on year real growth in spending into the future. But unlike Labor we won’t see spending blow out and we certainly won’t be relying on a huge tax growth, $387 billion dollars’ worth of extra taxes. We’ll keep spending under control and we’ll keep spending at levels that are still projected to be higher than what it was as a share of the economy under the Howard government but will certainly be lower than what Labor’s reckless taxing and reckless spending might deliver.
JOURNALIST:
But the Grattan Institute says that’s a $40 billion dollar cut in spending and that’s assuming 4.5 per cent GDP growth every year. So which is it? Is GDP growth going to exceed 4.5 percent, or are you going to be cutting $40 billion dollars a year from social spending?
SIMON BIRMINGHAM:
Well we don’t accept the modelling of the Grattan Institute, we accept the modelling that is in the Budget papers in the Budget papers and projections clearly outline economic growth assumptions, clearly outline the fact that as we have done with the government, the more jobs you create, the lower the welfare bill is, the higher of course the tax revenue is in terms of those working Australians delivering and generating income taxes. And that has been one of the virtues of why we’ve been able to bring the Budget back to surplus to achieve the type of turnaround budget forecast. And by having significantly lower numbers of Australians, the lowest rate of Australians in terms of the working age population on welfare and being able to get more Australians in jobs. Nearly 1.3 million jobs created under our government and plans for a further 1.25 million that will deliver that wonderful circumstance where you can have a balanced budget. Taxes coming down but still rely on having the government revenue required to invest in growth, in hospitals, schools and roads spending in the future.
JOURNALIST:
So there are still a lot of questions isn’t it quite possible that Mr Shorten just genuinely misinterpreted that question that was asked from yesterday?
SIMON BIRMINGHAM:
No. His words could not have been clearer yesterday. He was very clear. Bill Shorten was very succinct in saying he had no plans for higher taxes on superannuation, when the reality is he does have those plans and he was just seeking to mislead the Australian people.
JOURNALIST:
Are you not really in a position to be lecturing people on the actual super changes given you guys made retrospective changes to super at the last election?
SIMON BIRMINGHAM:
There was no doubt at the last election about the Coalition’s policies on superannuation. And there was no way that Scott Morrison or Josh Frydenberg or Malcolm Turnbull at the time didn’t give straight answers in relation to the policies at that time. What we did was we looked at the end figure a $1.6 million dollar super nest egg there and said well once you’ve got that amount then of course we want to balance the way in which the super system and the tax system works. That was about ensuring that everybody can save to be self-reliant in retirement to have the right level of nest egg, whereas what Bill Shorten’s tax measures will do, is actually hit people while they are saving and make it harder for them to get to that viable nest egg.
JOURNALIST:
So just on super just to clarify is the government making a commitment that there’ll be no changes to the taxation of super in the next term of Coalition government and is that really a responsible promise to make given their potential enormous revenue source there, that you’re locking away?
SIMON BIRMINGHAM:
And that has been one of the virtues of why we have been able to bring the Budget back to surplus. To achieve the type of turn-around in the Budget forecast, by having significantly lower numbers of Australians, the lowest rate of Australians in terms of working age population on welfare. And being able to get more Australians in jobs. Nearly 1.3 million jobs created under our government. And plans for a further 1.25 million, that will deliver that wonderful circumstance where you can have, balanced budget, taxes coming down. But still rely on having the government revenue required to invest in growth, in hospital and road spending in the future.
JOURNALIST:
Politicians are asked a lot of questions. Isn’t it quite possible that Mr Shorten just genuinely misinterpreted that question yesterday?
SIMON BIRMINGHAM:
No, his words could not have been clearer yesterday. He was very clear. Bill Shorten was very succinct in saying he had no plans for higher taxes on superannuation, when the reality is he does have those plans and he was just seeking to mislead the Australian people.
JOURNALIST:
You are not really in a position to be lecturing people on the actual super changes given you guys made retrospective changes to super at the last election.
SIMON BIRMINGHAM:
There was no doubt at the last election about the Coalition’s policies on superannuation, and there was no way known that Scott Morrison or Josh Frydenberg or Malcolm Turnbull at the time didn’t give straight answers in relation to the policies at that time. We addressed, what we did, was we looked at the end figure, a $1.6 million super nest egg there and said, well once you’ve got that amount, then of course we want to balance the way in which the super system and the tax system works. That was about ensuring that everybody can save to be self-reliant in retirement, to have the right level of nest egg. What Bill Shorten’s tax measures will do, is actually hit people while they are saving and make it harder for them to get to that viable nest egg.
JOURNALIST:
Just on super, just to clarify, is the government making a commitment that there’ll be no changes to the taxation of super in the next term of Coalition government? And is that really irresponsible promise to make given the potential enormous revenue source there,that you’re locking away.
SIMON BIRMINGHAM:
That is the commitment that Scott Morrison made yesterday, and we make that commitment because we’ve addressed these issues in the past. We’ve addressed fairness in terms of superannuation savings system to make sure that it can’t be used as a vehicle as to pass on to future generations. But it ought to be used as a vehicle for people where they can afford to be able to be self-reliant in retirement. And why shouldn’t, tradies, self-employed, people starting up their own business, be able to put money away into super the same way the rest of us do? And to be able to build up that nest egg for their retirement. Why does Bill Shorten want to take that right away from around eight hundred thousand Australians?
JOURNALIST:
Minister, we’re all very excited because PFO is coming up this afternoon
JOURNALIST:
Is there any number in the PFO figures that we’re going to see, that will be different to what we saw in the budget? Can you rule that out, and if there is going to be a difference, why?
SIMON BIRMINGHAM:
Well I’ll let PFO speak for itself, and I’ll let the Treasury Ministers speak to PFO later this afternoon.
JOURNALIST:
George Christensen’s referred his travel expenses to the independent authority. Mathias Cormann this morning said it’s up to individual members to determine whether that sort of spending passes the pub test. Do you think using taxpayer dollars for domestic flights to hook up with international personnel overseas travel passes the pub test?
SIMON BIRMINGHAM:
Well I think what’s important is whether or not work expenses are within the rules and the guidelines. And that’s why George Christensen has done the right thing asking the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority to verify his claim that these expenses are within the guidelines. And I trust the independent agency that was set up in a bipartisan way by the Parliament to make the right call in that regard.
JOURNALIST:
Would you do, would you do that. Would you book domestic travel on the taxpayer to help link up with your personal overseas travel, would you do that?
SIMON BIRMINGHAM:
Well I think it’s important to note, Mr Christensen says that these expenses were within…
JOURNALIST:
Senator, Senator, sorry. It’s not an answer. I’m asking whether you would do it personally.
SIMON BIRMINGHAM:
Well, the expenditure scenario you put would not necessarily be in the guidelines. However, Mr Christensen has been clear the expenditure he undertook was within the guidelines. Obviously, he will provide all relevant information to the independent Parliamentary expenses authority as he’s indicated would.
JOURNALIST:
Would it be better for the government if he just paid it back now. It’s $3000. Why shouldn’t he just pay back now, and you can move on. This doesn’t have to keep. This will come back before the election something the government has to deal with.
SIMON BIRMINGHAM:
He says these are expenses that were within the normal guidelines, the normal rules. Obviously, I don’t know what other business he was undertaking whilst he was in those cities and that’s a matter between him, the independent authority. That’s what we have an independent authority for.
JOURNALIST:
The High Court has ruled that federal laws overriding state developer donation bans are invalid this morning. Isn’t it embarrassing to the coalition that you’ve been caught out trying to give the green light to developer donations?
SIMON BIRMINGHAM:
Look I haven’t had a chance to look at the high court’s ruling. We will make sure that we abide as we always do, by whatever the donation laws of the day are. And from the Government’s perspective, we will ensure that we deploy the best possible circumstance, the best possible transparency around our donations. We will abide by the law as we always do in each and every election campaign and declare interest goes according to the laws of the land.
JOURNALIST:
Sorry just one more. Have any more policy that you’re going to get costed by the PBO between now and the election. Are all your costings done?
SIMON BIRMINGHAM:
The Government has of course only just released a very comprehensive budget and our policies were appropriately costed as part of the budget process.