E&OE TRANSCRIPT
TELEVISION INTERVIEW
ABC NEWS AFTERNOON BRIEFING
TUESDAY, 16 APRIL 2019
 
SUBJECT/S: Superannuation; Liberals’ secret cuts to pay for tax handouts for top end of town; negative gearing; Labor’s pathology announcement; Notre Dame; Huawei
 
PATRICIA KARVELAS: I'm going to be joined next by Labor's official campaign spokesperson. He is also, of course, the Shadow spokesman for Finance, so he has a couple of hats. He joins us now. Jim Chalmers, welcome.
 
JIM CHALMERS, LABOR CAMPAIGN SPOKESPERSON: I'm not wearing any hats today, PK.
 
KARVELAS: Oh, wear a hat, c'mon! Actually, that would be impolite on television.
 
CHALMERS: It would.
 
KARVELAS: Today Bill Shorten said Labor had no plans to increase taxes on superannuation but you're planning to change or abolish a range of concessions, deductions and thresholds, which will increase costs, so did he make a mistake?
 
CHALMERS: No, I think what Scott Morrison knows and what you would know, having followed this for some time, is that Bill was referring to additional changes beyond what we've already announced and had on the table for some time now. For some months, we've said that we have proposed changes to superannuation. We have no further announcements to make on superannuation tax in the campaign. So the policy that we announced some time ago, we'll take to the election.
 
KARVELAS: So let's talk about that policy because that policy does involve a slug for people, for older Australians, doesn't it?
 
CHALMERS: You can describe it that way, Patricia, obviously I wouldn't describe it that way. What we're proposing is a set of pretty modest changes, to change the higher income threshold, for example, to change the threshold for non-concessional contributions. That's not a new thing. That's been on the table for some time now. At least 12 months, I believe. So we've been explaining that around the country. People know where we're coming from. That's what we'll take to the election.
 
KARVELAS: So next time Bill Shorten is asked, he should outline that, shouldn't he?
 
CHALMERS: Well, I didn't see Bill Shorten's press conference but I've heard him answer this question before.  We've got superannuation policies on the table; we're asked from time to time whether we have any additional policies in the works that we might announce during the election campaign. We don't. That, as I understand it, was the question that Bill was answering.
 
KARVELAS: OK, so from further on, you will articulate that you do actually have plans to change superannuation rather than say there are no further plans? Because I think that's at centre here, that the government says that Bill Shorten has tried to avoid making this clear?
 
CHALMERS: I just think it's rubbish from Scott Morrison. I mean, he knows, you know and I know, and I think a lot of Australians know, that we've proposed some time ago to make some changes to superannuation. We said that, that is the totality of our proposed changes. What Scott Morrison's doing here is he is trying to distract from what is the main story that's happened today, which is we found out there are $40 billion a year of hidden cuts in his budget to pay for his tax cuts for the top end of town. Scott Morrison, as he always does, tries to distract from that fact but it's in his own Budget. The government has a secret agenda to cut $40 billion worth of spending, whether it be on hospitals, schools, aged care or the NDIS, to pay for tax cuts which overwhelmingly favour people on the highest incomes.
 
KARVELAS: Well, the government disputes that it has any plans for cuts so let's leave that because they are certainly disputing it.
 
CHALMERS: I don't think we should leave it, Patricia. It's in their own Budget. It is on page 3-12 of Budget Paper 1. There's a graph that shows they will dramatically cut spending to fund their tax cuts.  That's what they're relying on to fund their tax cuts.
 
KARVELAS: I will put that to my next guest, Arthur Sinodinos. Last night, Terri Butler said that Labor's policy costings were being updated with the latest Budget projections. Parts of your negative gearing policy have been taken down from the website. So how much will your negative gearing policy change? Why was it taken down?
 
CHALMERS: It hasn't been taken down, it has been updated, Patricia. There is a negative gearing page on our web page. It has been updated to reflect the fact we have announced in the last few weeks what the start date of our policy will be, which is 1 January next year. It has been updated so it is the same template for all our policy commitments and announcements in the election. It's a total beat-up to say it's been taken down. It's been updated. That is our policy.
 
KARVELAS: Has it addressed this issue of the under-estimation of the extent of investment in new housing stock because that's been under-estimated by Labor? Is that why it's also been updated?
 
CHALMERS: A couple of things about that, Patricia. Terri is absolutely right to say that standard practice, not just after this Budget but after every Budget, is we get the Parliamentary Budget Office to update our costings to take into account the most recent parameters. Terri Butler is absolutely spot on. We will release those costings at some point during the campaign which, again, is entirely normal. On the issue around the assumptions, the Parliamentary Budget Office stands by their costings of our negative gearing policy. They consulted widely including with the Reserve Bank, with other regulators and others in the economy to make sure they came up with a robust costing. The government again has tried to distract from their own problems on tax, their tax cuts for the top end of town -
 
KARVELAS: My question, with respect, Jim Chalmers, is on this under-estimation and the extent of new housing. Is this going to be updated in the policy?
 
CHALMERS: Every single policy is updated, Patricia, after -
 
KARVELAS: So will that part be updated? That's my specific question.
 
CHALMERS: Obviously if everything is updated, Patricia, then the costings for negative gearing will be updated. Not necessarily to take into account what you're referring to but to take into account all of the changes in the economic parameters. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Every policy gets updated. The Parliamentary Budget Office has relied on their own consultations, their own costings with the Bureau of Stats, the RBA and others to come up with that costing. So I don't accept that there has been some kind of error made in the costing. It will be updated like all of our policies. It will be released well before the election and people will know how much it will cost.
 
KARVELAS: It's a reasonable question. It's an incredibly contentious policy, it is one of the policy battlegrounds in this election, so people do want to see what your presumptions are, what your estimation is in terms of new housing stock, what you talk about in this policy. When will it be available? 
 
CHALMERS: As I have said, it will be available during the election campaign. We haven't even had released yet the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook which will be released shortly -
 
KARVELAS: I understand it's tomorrow. Does that mean we'll get an update in the next couple of days, by the start of next week?
 
CHALMERS: No Patricia, it takes some time for us to update our costings. We are relying on the Parliamentary Budget Office. We also have an expert panel of costers to go through. We will release it with plenty of time for people to understand what the costs of our policies are well before they go to the polls. 
KARVELAS: Do you anticipate much change from what you previously said in that policy?
 
CHALMERS: I'm not going to preempt the work of the Parliamentary Budget Office. They'll go through all of the costings. Remember, of course, as well, not just updating on the basis of new economic data and new forecasts in the Budget but there's also a new Budget year that comes into the Budget because we're another year on from when it was last costed. All of that will have an impact. We will release those costings in the usual way. It's entirely standard for us to do that later in the campaign.
 
KARVELAS: The Government says bulk billing for pathology tests have increased to 99.4 per cent under their watch and all Labor's additional funding does that you've announced today is actually give more money to large corporations. What's your response to that, because that's a very high rate of cover isn't it for bulk billing?
 
CHALMERS: Pathology is a key part of the system, particularly for cancer diagnoses and treatment, particularly for older Australians as well. We think it's at a crossroads because there's a lot of pressure on the industry. We need to make sure that people aren't either deciding between paying more or going without these really important blood tests, so we will invest $200 million in the bulk billing incentive to make sure - 
 
KARVELAS: But do you accept that Government figure that the coverage is that high? Because it's a high rate. Anyone would say wow that's a very high rate of bulk billing coverage.
 
CHALMERS: It's for the Government to vouch for their figures. I haven't seen that number, Patricia. The point I'm making is that we need to make sure that vulnerable people can continue to access pathology. It's a key part of the health system. It's a key part of diagnoses. But also making sure that we know whether the treatment is working or not in cancer and also for older Australians. We're making that investment. That's part of what we're trying to do to restore these cuts that Scott Morrison has made over the past few years to the health system and it's a key part of the election choice that people are being asked to make. Labor will invest more in health, whether it's pathology, hospitals, cancer treatment, MRIs, waiting lists, all of these important things. The Government, as we now know today, will take money out of health and out of schools and give it to the wealthiest Australians with their tax cuts for the top end of town.
KARVELAS: OK, so even though it's at the high rate of coverage, you still think there's an emergency here for pathology?
 
CHALMERS: The industry is under a lot pressure, Patricia, and we don't want people to have to choose between paying more or going without. We think this is a responsible measure, a bulk billing incentive to make sure that we can keep people getting access to the tests that they need, to keep an eye on their diagnosis and that's why we’ve made the announcement we've made today. But it is part of a far broader suite of health announcements we've been making and health investments we want to make to try to start to undo the damage done by Scott Morrison to our health system.
 
KARVELAS: You've probably heard but the Prime Minister did a press conference this afternoon and really steered clear, he's not a big fan of Malcolm Turnbull's idea for this fund to be created. He says Australians individually can, of course, give money to the Notre Dame restoration plan but he's more focused on north Queensland farmers. What's your focus? Do you think the focus should be on drought-affected farmers or are you still behind this plan for this fund?
 
CHALMERS: I don't think it's an either/or, Patricia. We've been very strong in our support for farmers in regional Queensland who have done it very tough in the last little while. Bill Shorten has agreed with, not just Malcolm Turnbull but also Josh Frydenberg, who thought Australia could make a modest contribution in the aftermath of this pretty heartbreaking fire in Paris at Notre Dame. But I think it does say something more broadly. The fact that the Treasurer and the Prime Minister can't get on the same page on something as simple as this really is another indication of the chaos that has consumed the Liberal Party in the last six years; the type of chaos Australians are sick of. They are sick of the splits in the senior Government ranks, sick of fights between Turnbull and Dutton and Morrison and Abbott and others. They want a Government which is on the same page. They want a united and stable team and that's Labor. 
 
KARVELAS: OK, so you are trying to make much of their difference on this but, of course, this just came up today. This is literally a breaking story, an emergency, if you like, that the world is watching. So how much would Labor contribute?
 
CHALMERS: It remains to be seen, Patricia. We have said we are up for a conversation with the Government on what a modest and responsible contribution may look like. It's the start of the conversation, not the end of it. I don't accept it's a choice between that and doing something meaningful for our farmers, which we've supported all along. There are choices in the Budget more broadly. I've outlined them a moment ago between more investment in health or bigger tax cuts for the top end of town. But I don't think, fundamentally, we have to choose between a modest contribution to a fund as outlined by Malcolm Turnbull and Josh Frydenberg today and doing the right thing by farmers.
KARVELAS: Just a quick question on something that's breaking this afternoon. There's evidence today that China's ban on Australian coal imports is linked to the decision to ban Huawei from the 5G network. China's foreign ministry says the Huawei ban undermines trade. How should Australia respond to this?
 
CHALMERS: That's largely a matter for the Chinese, how they've reacted to the decision that the Australian Government took on Huawei. I do know that we get briefed as an Opposition on those decisions and it's longstanding practice not to go into the details of those briefings. We will always take the advice of agencies when it comes to things like Huawei's access to the 5G network. Beyond that, obviously I've seen those reports. I've seen the language from the Chinese representatives. That's really, at the end of the day, a matter for them.
 
KARVELAS: Jim Chalmers, thank you so much for your time.
 
CHALMERS: Thank you, Patricia.
 
ENDS