Now onto GB and network stations. Back to afternoons with Michael McLaren. All right into the third hour. Thank you for joining me.
Ted O'Brien, the Shadow Treasurer, calling in in just a moment. We'll have a conversation with him about his priorities for the next three years. Also James Thompson later in the hour, he's from the AFR, the finn Review. Now they've got their AI summit tomorrow, which would be fascinating to attend, even for bloodites like me that wouldn't understand one of the technical bits of jargon over the other. But nonetheless
you get the thrust to where this thing's heading. But there was a story over the weekend in the Finn and you might have seen it made very interesting reading if.
You got through it.
And that is how artificial intelligence could firstly kill off work from home, but beyond that would have massive ramifications for the workforce going forward. I get the feeling we've only just scratched the surface of what AI is going to do or could do to the way the workplaces around us operate, potentially even our own workplaces. But you know, I guess only time will tell how far legislation allows it to penetrate, but nonetheless it's going to be a
very very difficult force to hold back. Now, a lot of different stories around we were speaking earlier about smoking. There's an interesting piece by Rob Harris as the European correspondent in The Herald about this. Nothing to do with the situation out here per se, but as he says, for decades smoking was less a habit in France and Spain,
that it was rather a cultural flourish. But while much of the world stubbed out the social acceptability of smoking and long ago, the change in Europe has been slow. It's been more reluctant, as he says. However, now term of the continent's most iconic smoking nations and making their boldest moves yet to catch up. From July one, from will be banning smoking in many outdoor places public spaces, including beaches, parks, playgrounds, bus stops and areas around schools.
And as for the Spaniards, well, they're preparing to go even further, apparently, with the sweeping reform of its anti smoking law set to take effect by the end of the year, and that plan, the Spanish plan, will outlaw smoking and vaping in places as varied as stadiums, swimming pools, university campuses and even work vehicles. Now, of course, a lot of that's already been done here and to positive effect. The difference between here and there, of course, is the
tax that they charge smokers on the cigarettes. Now in France, there will be a lot of people saying, oh, caldomage, because over there, part of the legislation is that the price of cigarettes per packet will go from eleven euros at the moment, which is just under twenty dollars, to twelve euros in twenty twenty five, and thirteen euros, oh dear by twenty twenty seven. So when you make it conversion, that's maybe twenty four dollars, which is not even half
the price of a comparable packet out here. So they got a long way to go before the illicit market really comes in muscles in more so than what it would be doing already. But reading all of this as a non smoker, did it did make me think and I'm not sure what the answer is, but I'm trying to think about how long ago it was when smoking in public places and restaurants and all of that was
just alloud and common. I mean, do you remember the days when smoking was allowed indoors, in restaurants, on flights, in clubs, in cinemas, I mean, all of these different places. You may not have been a smoker yourself, but I bet you remember when others that were were allowed to partake. I mean, I remember working behind a bar at a restaurant or two, and even when I was working, smoking
had to be outdoors. But the way that the wind was channeled through the door, and when you know, it came straight at me at the bar and you could smell it. That's unpleasant. It was in your clothes all night long, and that sort of thing. When you got home, your stank of it. But it wasn't that long ago in the scheme of things that people were puffing away inside restaurants and on flights and discothechs and in cinemas and you know, all these sort of places. And we're
much better for not having it now. And I think even smokers by and large would agree with me. But it did remind me, I guess, of how fortunate we are, because there's only a few years ago. I was in Vienna and we went along to a pub type of joint for dinner. And when we walked in you could
barely breathe. I mean, it's just smoke everywhere. And this was I don't know, five six years ago, maybe I don't know, maybe eight, not that long ago, in the school of there, and they were puffing away to the hearts content inside, and I said, look, I can't hang around in here. So I had a bit of a wander around and found the non smoking room which was out in the back, and as soon as I went in, there actually a couple of other families, so this are good.
So in they all went away from the stench of the nicotine. Now, I think in Vienna the rule has changed since. I think if you go there now, you're they're not smoking over the schnitzels inside. But it wasn't that long ago they were puffing away and it was it was really gross. It's really gross, but it makes you appreciate just how I guess lucky. We've been here for what is now quite a long time not to have to put up with that over a meal or
in an enclosed environment. One three, one, eight seven three.
That open line number twelve past two.
Okay, Now, look it does seem that only since Labour's massive election victory the federal election, if we suddenly seen the focus switch from some of them, or two, I should say, some of the policies that the party were actually offering up in the last few months, who have finally got a bit of a laser like focus on actually what they want to do with all of this power, And a lot of these promises were out in the open.
But the Opposition, and they will now admit this, did not effectively prosecute the case against the worst of the policies. In some respects they were willing to match them. That was the problem. But the main one I've certainly been calling out for a while now is this super tax, the tax of the government want to bring on unrealized capital gains super portfolios over three million dollars and they don't want to indxit. As we're outlined again today, as
you know, no thanks to the coalition campaign. This is the government's tax policy and it's going to come in. The question is will it come in as they envisage or as the Greens wanted, or if the Coalition decide to try to negotiate something here to knock the Greens out of the debate. Will it look a little softer, but we will still get the whiff of it as
it were. Well, this is something that the new Shadow Treasurer Ted O'Brien is going to have to mull over with his colleagues and indeed over the next three years. And he's with me on the line. Ted, good to
speak with you again, thank you for your time. Likewise, Michael, when we last spoke you with a shadow energy minister, now you're the Shadow Treasurer, so you've got to you know, obviously pivot toward the broader economic story here, but tying the two together, I think it's still true, irrespective of the result a month or so ago, energy is the economy, right, So if we've got to get energy policy right so that we get the broader economic story of this country.
Right Michael, you spot on energy still remains absolutely critical and an election might come and go, but still Australians are paying among the highest prices in the world for energy and that makes us poorer and weaker and more dependent as a nation and as individuals, and so yes, a new portfolio for me as the Shadow Treasurer. But the importance of energy being the economy, Well that still remains.
Now, look, I know you're about to have the debate in the party room and this is on net zero. But look, whether the Opposition support net zero going forward or not, let's assume you do. Is it possible to reach net zero in the economy without nuclear power in the mixtep.
Well, certainly, as we spoke about last term of government, Mike, when I know you and I spoke about this. Most countries around the world, you know, like countries, countries that are peers to Australia, they are adopting nuclear energy because they've come to the conclusion that you can't get to net zero without it and you can't keep prices down without it. And so we need to be driven by the evidence of what works overseas and what doesn't work.
Of course, all the policies of the coalition are now under review, and that includes our commitment to nuclear energy in terms of its form. But we have agreed that the moratorium should absolutely be lifted and the details of the politician the policy for energy will be determined over time.
Now to Treasury per se. The big first test, I guess here is what you're going to do over this tax to do with super balances over three million and the unrealized capital gains component. I saw you spoke to the Australian overnight and there was some suggestion that there may be some deal that could be done here with the government if they were willing to walk back certain aspects. Wouldn't you I mean, by doing that, aren't you just really giving some credibility to what is a dog of
a policy? I mean, wouldn't you be better off leaving it to Labor and the Greens to stuff it and then to point out in three years time how they stuffed it.
Well, Michael, the first thing we have to do is fight what is your right? A dog of a policy? I mean, Labour super innuation tax is it's nothing but a tax grap been wrapped up in a lie and Jim Chalmers a title pret little bow around that lie and is out there trying to sell it. But it is bad news. It's super big and super bad and you're right. The unrealised capital gains component is just awful.
This would set a new precedent to tax people for a financial gain they haven't even received yet and they may not receive. I mean, that is just lunacy. But it's going to force a whole change in behavior of people, which is why you are going to see tens of billions of dollars leave super accounts and go into the property market, up in property prices. You'll see startups being staffed of a seed capital. You will see high growth stocks,
including technology, not getting the investment they need. I mean, this is bad news. And over time it's going to capture more and more people. Younger people today just on average salaries, over time they're going to be captured by this. So this is indeed a bad piece of public policy, and Michael, we have to fight it. We have to fight it all the way. Now. As for whether there's a deal to be done, my general view is in opposition. You should be constructive where you can and critical where
you master. Across all policies, re portfolio will be exactly the same. So yes, of course the door is open to talk. But if the Treasurer persists with taxing unrealized capital gains, well there will be no ideal to be done. Of course, but sure if he wants to talk about it, more than happy.
I let me just try to interpret that and tell me if I'm verbaling you ted or not. What you're saying is no to unrealized capital gains, no to non indexation of the policy, but maybe to a thirty percent tax on a conditional rate on super balances over three million if those two other elements are left at the door.
Almost Michael, But what I probably won't please don't you be offended by this? But I want sort of go through negotiating positions at this point on radio.
But if it's about principle, right, so you're open to the principle of increasing that rate.
On super So let me answer from a principled position. Our starting principle, whether it be superannuation or any other tax, is as a coalition, we believe in lower, simpler and fairer taxes, and so any increase in taxation for us is something that we typically push away. What then we've said about superannuation is, as you look at Labour's superannuation tax, it is so bad that the most egregious element is
the tax on unrealized capital gains. And I've referred to that as being a red line that would set a new precedent. The first thing that Jim Chalmers needs to do is to confirm he will scrap that. Secondly, not indexing it, which means over time captures more and more people get stung by this bad tax. Exactly right. Again, the Treasurer needs to confirm that he's prepared to compromise on that. There's a third element and that is just
the integrity of what they're even trying to do. The legislation Michael, they've put into the Parliament gives the treasure of the power to define how these changes would affect the Prime Minister, his boss. And by the way, he won't tell the Australian people how it will affect the Prime Minister until after the legislation goes through. So there are integrity issues here, and then of course there's the tax increase itself. So basically we need to fight this,
but on any policy will be constructed. So if Jim Chalmers sees the light and he is prepared to be humble enough to recognize that this is a big, bad super tax, then more than happy to have a conversation about how we can work together on super reform.
Okay, do super need reform? I guess there'd be a lot of people listening saying, well, you know, sit and forgets the best way to deal with this. So, I mean you've just said that the Liberal position going forward, and this is I think sound and right and good,
is that lower taxes. Is the mantrate, not higher. Now, if that is the principal objective of the Liberal Party with you as shadow treasurer, doubling the concession or rate from fifteen to thirty percent for those with over three million in assets would automatically be ruled out, won't it, because that's that's higher tax? So why is there still a bit of equivocation here ted about what might happen?
Well, let's wait to see whether or not Jim Chalmers and the Labor Party are prepared to compromise on anything. Michael, again, our principle of you know, but I.
My question is what is there to.
Company we else to talk about? Is that what you mean? Now?
What is there to compromise on?
I mean, if the first two things and no goes and good on your saying that, but the unrealized and the non indexation. The only thing quote unquote to compromise is increasing tax on super portfolios with over three million in assets.
So that's a tax hike.
You've just said the principle the bedrock of view, a shadow treasure is lower tack.
So what's the compromise, Well, it depends what he might be prepared to bring to the table. Candidly, I'll be surprised so far by his words publicly if he's prepared to compromise on anything, Michael. And if that's the case, well there's no idea to be done.
Right.
You know, the one thing that we should be talking about when it comes to superannuation is that principle of simplicity. I don't know when you last received advice about superannuation, but a common piece of feedback I have constantly received over the years is how complex the entire system is. So you know, we're not saying that there's no room for improvement on super, but what we are saying is labor super innuation tax is super big, super bad, and
we should be fighting against it. That reason, I want to compromise and cave in. Sure, more than happy to sit down and talk about how we can reform super.
Okay, you said earlier it was a tax scrab wrapped up in a lie with a bow added by doctor Charmill's or words to that effect. Well, that's of course tream but of course it was all of that before May three. So why didn't the Lib's character shreds during the campaign.
Well, we should have gone harder, and we didn't, Michael, I'd like to be able to come up with a good, solid reason. One of the early lessons learned as we continue to review what happened on the third of May, is that we should have gone harder on this one. And I say that not pointing the finger by the way I put my hand up to saying me too, I should have gone harder on this one. We all
should have. But here we are, and we've got to make sure that we do everything now to call out the problems this the flaws, what it means to not just people today, but young people as they advance through their careers, they collect money into their savings. They two are going to be stung. We need to call it out, we need to fight it. But sure if Jim Chalmers and Labor are prepared to compromise, more than appy to have a conversation.
Because it just finally that the theory doing the drownds is that the reason the Liberals didn't call this out is because behind the scenes they would have been more than happy to have the additional revenue raised to go to treasury so they can fund promises. Now see, when you're talking about compromises and all of this, rather than just saying no, we're going to have no part of this at all, that theory gains a little credence in some people's minds.
You see, Oh, Michael, not a chance in the world if we had won the election, would we be taking forward labour superannuation tax? Not at all. And that's never been our position. I think what is a fair cop is we should have done better, We should have done more at fighting against this tax. We are where we are and what I'm certainly giving you the assurance of today is that we have every intention of fighting against this tax and we are making it clear upfront about
the key issues of concern. You know, we're not vacating the field and becoming commentators. We are a party of government even though we are not in government, and that means we need to engage with these policies with the detail. That's what we will be doing. And so he is hoping that Australia doesn't continue to go down the path of becoming poorer and weaker and less productive. But this will just be one of many measures I'm sure we're going to have to deal with in this term.
Look good to talk to it, and let's make it a regular thing if time permits.
Thank you for your time, Quice, thanks for Michael, all the best, Ted O'Brien, the Shadow Treasurer,