Speers: The Treasurer Josh Frydenberg (will join us), and to take us there
here was the Prime Minister seizing on Anthony Albanese's comments on tax.
Morrison: He was asked point blank, there on the Today Show, "will you increase taxes?" Not
just once, not just twice, but on three times he was asked "will you increase taxes?" Fudged it.
Couldn't answer it. Well let me be very clear, because it's a very simple question to answer.
There are no increases in taxes or new taxes in the budget we handed down this week,
and there won't be any under the government that I have led, and will continue to lead.
Josh Frydenberg welcome to the program. Nice to be with you, David.
So the Prime Minister says there will be no increase in taxes, no new taxes, if you're
re-elected. Does that mean you're ruling out any further tax reform for the next three years?
Well, the tax reform that we've undertaken is actually cut taxes, like abolishing a full tax
bracket, the 37 cents in the dollar. Seeing 95% of taxpayers pay a marginal rate of no more than 30
cents in the dollar between $45,000 and $200,000. Our plan was set out in the budget on Tuesday
night. It was a plan for lower taxes. It will see a $420 top-up to the Low and Middle Income
Tax Offset which will see ten million Australians benefit. There was also a cutting of the fuel
excise in half. There was also $120 tax deduction for small businesses that invest
in new technology, that in skilling their workers and also an extension of the patent
box which sees a concessional company tax rate of 17 cents in the dollar for new innovation in areas
like agriculture technology and low emissions technology. It's a very stark contrast. Our plans,
as we've delivered, as we said to the Australian people last election, for lower taxes. Labor's
$387 billion of higher taxes and Jim Chalmers, my opponent, saying that he wants to be flexible
around tax, he wants to have a budget after the election. The Australian people deserve to know
what flexibility on tax for Labor means, not after the election, but before the election.
OK, let's try to stick to your plans, what you're planning for the next three years.
Are you ruling out any further tax reform? We've undertaken significant
structural tax reform. I'm just asking about the next
three years when the Prime Minister says no new tax, no tax increases,
does that mean no tax reform? What I'm saying is our tax reforms
have been lowering taxes. You must be signing up to the Labor definition of tax reform.
No, I'm asking about the future, not the past Our future is about lower taxes. We're
always looking for opportunities to cut taxes and in this budget, we've done it
both for small business and for households. When you look at our track record...
What is your definition of tax reform? What is the Liberal definition of tax reform? Are you
ruling out any changes in the next three years? The Liberal definition is a simpler tax system,
a fairer tax system and lower taxes. That's what we've delivered on everything
from small businesses to households and we've also helped lead the world
with the work around the multinational agenda and creating a minimum global tax through the OECD.
The fairer taxes could include increasing some and decreasing others?
Well, if you look at our big signature stage 3 tax reform, what that has done
is maintained the progressive nature of our tax system and that's always been a focus for us.
So multinationals, big tech, they won't face any tax increases if you're back in?
We've laid it out in the budget. We did invest more money in the budget around multinational
tax avoidance. We have made changes. You're collecting an extra $2 billion….
Base erosion, profit shifting. The work that we've done through the OECD,
leading the world on a global minimum tax has meant we get a better tax system.
Let's talk about the cost of fuel. Five years ago when you were the Minister for Energy and
the Environment, you wanted Australia to catch up with the rest of the world, introduce fuel
efficiency standards. You said, "If Australia had fuel efficiency standards in line with comparable
nations the fuel saving per passenger vehicle could be above $500 a year." It never happened.
Are you saying that you won't touch that reform for another three years as well?
We're always looking for improvements around fuel efficiency standards because when I said that,
it's not just about lowering the cost of petrol but also about environmental
outcomes. So you might do this?
Again, this is work that Angus Taylor as the minister responsible has been undertaking.
Five years ago - you were going to do it? What we've done is halved the fuel excise
by more than 22 cents a litre. We've done it for six months.
Just to be clear, are you saying that you could still do fuel
efficiency standards after the election? We’ve always been committed to getting fuel
efficiency standards in place but working through the details with the stakeholders is important.
So it's still alive? That issue has been a focus for us.
OK, you did instead cut the fuel excise for six months. Will it definitely go
back up in September no matter what? That's what the legislation said. The
legislation sunsets. That's our plan. What we have done is as you say, we’ve done it for six months.
We've cut it by more than 22 cents a litre. In New Zealand, they cut it for three months
but they did 25 cents a litre. In France they did it for four months, in Ireland they did
it for five months and the Netherlands for six months. Australia hasn't been alone in cutting
fuel excise but if you're a family with two cars and fill up once a week, you're $30 a week better
off up to and $700 over the six months. If you're Treasurer and Opposition Leader,
in six months time, you won't argue that we need to keep this fuel excise?
I'm certainly not arguing that. And the other thing to point to you David, is that Treasury's
forecast for the price of a barrel of oil is down to $100 by the September quarter. Now
it's around $115, $120. So we actually think that the barrel of oil price will come down.
There was the fuel excise cut. There was the cash payments as well to deal with cost of living.
The Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar announced a $10 cut in the price of medicines.
The cut will cut the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
from the current around of $42.50 to the new amount of $32.50 commencing on May 1, 2022.
A $10 cut in the price of medicines. Why wasn't that in the budget speech?
What we did was announce that with respect to the thresholds, we would change that when you
need multiple scripts, that's available to…. That's different to what Michael Sukkar
said. Is it in the budget or not? What Michael was talking about was
the 2.4 million people who will benefit with the reduction in getting multiple scripts.
No he wasn't. He said that the price, the current amount will go from $42.50
to $32.50 from May 1. Is he right? Again, what we've been talking
about in the budget was taking for 2.4 million Australians, to get a reduction
in the amount that they pay for their tax. Was the $10 price cut taken out of the budget?
No, what I'm talking about is that there was a 2.4
million people benefitting from reducing... The safety net. I know that.
The safety net. But he specifically said and I can play
it again if you like…. That there would be a $10 cut in the price of medicine. Is that happening?
Our focus was on 2.4 million people. I know that the focus is there. But
is the $10 cut there happening? Again, what Michael has done when
introducing the legislation was talking about the thresholds that have been introduced.
Is he right about the $10 cut? Our focus is on 2.4 million people.
Just to be clear one more time - is the price of medicine coming down $10?
The price of medicine is coming down for 2.4 million people, either concession card holders
and non-concession holders. Previously you needed 48 scripts. Now you need 36 scripts.
If you are a concession card holder. What happens after that? That's a
different thing to what he said? That's what we've been talking about.
So the $10 cut is not happening? Again, what we've done is both for
concessional card holders and for non-concessional card holder, you get a substantial reduction
in the cost of your medicines as a result. You did also pump a lot of money into the regions,
various pots of money. $21 billion.
You called this unprecedented. It just happens to follow the deal that was difficult with
Barnaby Joyce and the Nationals over net zero by 2050. Some of the projects you're funding
including the Hells Gate Dam in North Queensland don't have a business case.
Yes. Why are you committing
$5.4 billion of taxpayer money to something that you don’t know whether it will stack up?
Again, we've made a number of announcements, $21 billion worth of support for our regions across
water infrastructure, transport infrastructure, telecommunications infrastructure and health
to be able to get more GPs and MRIs. Hell's Gate Dam has been on the drawing board for a number of
years. It would be a priority for Queensland. We've committed $5.4 billion. We'd like
a contribution from the Queensland Government. Wouldn't you like a business case to make sure
that you're not wasting the money? We will be doing business cases.
Shouldn't you do that and then commit the money? If you look at for example, the Melbourne Airport
rail link, we announced $5 billion for that matched by the Victorian Government, $5billion
before the business case was undertaken. We will be doing business cases but what the business case
will tell us is not whether we will be building these dams or these infrastructure projects,
it's how we will be doing it. Because the key about business cases is that you bring
in the surveyor, you bring in the architect, you bring in the engineers. They look at how
to do it at maximum value and at minimum cost. The Fair Work Commission will make a decision
later this year on aged care workers' pay. The Prime Minister says that the Government will,
"Absorb any decision". It's a little unclear what that means. Labor has committed to fund 100% of
what the umpire decides. Whatever that means.
They'll pay 100% of that the umpire decides. Again, you've got Government residential aged
care providers and also got those in the private sector. And where Anthony Albanese has been all at
sea is the costings of his open-ended promises. What about the Coalition? How much
would you fund of the increase? So firstly, we've taken aged care
funding from $13 billion to $30 billion. A massive increase. We commissioned the Royal Commission and
there was 148 recommendations and 5-year plan and I announced $17.7 billion in last year's budget
across home care and residential care. How will you fund the pay rise?
What we said is that we will respect the independent umpire. The independent umpire is
the Fair Work Commission and then with respect to the private sector, David, what we have now
is an independent pricing authority that takes into account the input costs and then makes the
subsidies increase accordingly. So we will respect the decision of the Fair
Work Commission, but when... What does this mean? I mean,
whatever they recommend, will you pay for the lot? Or will you ask the providers?
Obviously, when it comes to Government, when it comes to Government provision and residential
care, then we take responsibility for that. When it comes to that.
100% of that? We take responsibility,
obviously. We pick up the bill today. But private operators, you're saying
that they'll have to pay for part of that? We're saying that there's an independent
pricing authority that determines based on all of the input costs
what that increase in subsidy will be. Where that is different to the Labor Party is when Anthony
Albanese laid out his so-called 5-point plan, he then went on Leigh Sales and said that the total
cost of that was $2.5 billion. Only then to be contradicted the next day by Katy Gallagher, his
own shadow finance person who said no that that was only for the non-wage costs. (CROSS-TALK) So,
what does that actually mean? He will fund? Which part of it for the private sector will he fund?
We don't know. I've just told you what our plan is.
With respect, we don't know what level of this increase, whatever it turns out to be,
providers will be required to pick up. That's the independent pricing authority. You've got a lot
of providers, 60% of aged care facilities on an estimate that's going to be coming out this week
are running at a loss. That's even after the increase you announced in last year's budget. 60%
running at a loss. 65% in rural and remote areas. If you're asking them to pay more for staff,
some of them will shut their doors, won't they? Again, what we did as you pointed out in last
year's budget. We paid an extra $10 a day per resident. We put in place...
It's not enough, though, is it? We put in place
new retention bonuses for nurses and respite services and for carers. Obviously a better
approach around the workforce, around quality and safety. A new funding model and the like.
This was comprehensive, transformational reform. But the point is, 60% of them are running at a
loss right now. Even after all of that. You're going to ask them to pay more for
their staff. Can they really afford that? That's why you have an independent pricing
authority because it takes into account all of the different other input costs that the
particular providers are encountering and then it tries to work that out.
Ultimately, though, this could cost billions and billions, far more than the
$2.5 billion that Labor announced for other measures. Where will the money come from?
Labor's so-called costings are very fluffy, rubbery.
What about you? I'm asking you as Treasurer. Where will the money come from?
It depends on what the Fair Work Commission decides.
They'll decide on an increase at some level. Where will the money come from?
Again, you've got to wait to see what actually that decision is and therefore, how much that will
cost. There are different estimates, as you know, whether or not it's Uniting Care or others that
have made different estimates. We'll wait, but what we've made very clear is that we will respect
the decision of the Fair Work Commission. In the event of a hung Parliament, Zali Steggall
says she would be open to supporting a Coalition Government, as long as Scott Morrison is not
the leader. Would you be prepared to step up? Well, obviously, we're hoping to win the election
and striving to win the election in our own right. With respect to the Independents, firstly,
they're fake Independents. These Independents... Zali Steggall?
They're all having their strings pulled elsewhere. They're acting as a political party.
Who is pulling Zali Steggall’s strings? They're acting as a political party. They
get their funding from Climate 200. They're former Labor Party
members in many cases including in my own seat. Let’s stick to Zali Steggall, I don't think is a
former Labor Party member. In many cases they are and
that's the point. They're running with the implicit support of the Labor Party.
They're only targeting Coalition members. But back to the question. Would you rather
be in Opposition than take the prime ministership in those circumstances?
Well, David, we're seeking to win the election in our own right.
Your own seat of Kooyong is a challenge to hold. Will you campaign with the
Prime Minister in your seat? If he would like to come down,
he'll be very welcome and I'll be campaigning with him around the rest of the country as I'll
be campaigning in the rest of the country. I’m off to Western Australia later today.
Can you understand and can you believe the mess in the New South Wales Liberal
Party division wasn't sorted out much sooner? Well, it's less than ideal to say the least. And
obviously, I'm glad that it's been sorted out now. But don't think that we're the only
side of politics that has had issues in our own divisions. In the Labor Party... (CROSS-TALK) But
in the High Court, there was a challenge in the High Court last week to the Federal Labor Party's
division taking over the Victorian division. So don't think that it is just a pox on one house.
What about the claims that Scott Morrison racially vilified a competitor in a
pre-selection, which he denies? He's categorically denied it
and Jamal Rifi, who is one of Australia's leaders of the Australian Muslim Lebanese community has
said about Scott Morrison that he doesn't have a racist bone in his body. That's what he has said.
You never had anyone come to you with concerns about him using language like this? Or his
behaviour? No.
OK. Finally, we're about to head into the campaign. This is the end
of a pretty extraordinary three years for you as Treasurer, floods, fires, pandemic and so on.
Global conflict. Indeed, global recession.
If I can invite you not to be overly partisan at this moment - just give you a reflection of
what has been the most difficult moment? And any regrets about your own decisions?
Well, obviously, the most difficult is having been a Victorian and living through in Melbourne
the longest lockdown of any city in the world. And that impacted every family in Melbourne. So,
at a personal level, that it was obviously very difficult for so many. As the federal Treasurer,
those early days in March and in April were the most difficult because 1.4 million
people either lost their jobs or saw their working hours reduced to zero, and Treasury feared
that unemployment could reach as high as 15%. Now, it's the equal lowest in 48 years at 4%.
For me, that's been the most rewarding part of the last two years is helping to steer
an economy to have one of the fastest and strongest economic recoveries in the world.
Any regrets? Over your decisions? The only thing... The thing that I
regret and I felt really helpless at the time over was the kids being out of school for so long in
Melbourne, to be honest. You could be Federal Treasurer, deputy leader of the Liberal Party,
and you had no say over how we could get the kids back into the classroom.
I think that that has had a long-term, detrimental impact on both education and
social development outcomes and I feel very sad about that.
Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, we'll have to leave it there. Thank you for joining us.