The Week In Canberra with Dennis Shanahan

Canberra this morning. So tell me where you are and tell me what it's like.

across the line somehow. So it is a real thing. So excuse our interest in it, but taxing people on gains that haven't realized. And I don't care what the government says in defense of this. Once they do it in one asset class, who's to say, and the Greens, you know, they're going to have to support the government to get this through and they want negative gearing. Look, who's to say that the Greens won't say, right out, let's do this on another asset class, like your second

or third rental property. This has got absolute hair or labor, doesn't it.

problem at all. They can argue, as Jim Charms is arguing, we've had it out there all the time on these unrealized tax on superannuation also not indexed by the way, and only on self managed funds with totals of more than three million. But that, as you're saying, the principle involved here of taxing something on unrealized gains, that is,

you pay tax on paper games. So someone says, oh, your property is now worth four million more, You've got to pay tax on four million although you haven't got it. You have to end up sending selling the property to get the money to pay the tax on the earnings you haven't earned. Really is a nonsense. But what we're seeing politically here, I think is a lot of confusion

and a lack of people to grasp reality. Now. When the Prime Minister said this week I'm prepared to deal with the Coalition on a range of issues, including superannuation, he meant it because he knows that the reason that this superannuation tax in any form hasn't gone through in the past two years is because the government didn't control the Senate. And guess what, they still don't control the Senate,

so this still has to be negotiated. People have were saying, oh, look, you know they've got this huge majority, just stand aside let them. No, it doesn't work like that. The Senate is still there as a break on the House of Representatives,

and Anthony Albanez he knows this. He also is in his second term starting to say, well, you know, we're going to have to get some things through here, and he is signaled to the Coalition, I'm prepared to work with you, and he actually said rather than the Grooms, he doesn't want to do with the Greens. Now. What we then had was Jim Charmers coming out the next day and say, oh, no, I don't think the coalition's fair income. Because Ted O'Brien, the shadow Treasurer, had said

he was prepared to negotiate on this. So then the treasurer said, no, not faired income. Then a whole lot of people in the coalition came out and said no, we're not going to cop this either. So we've got Jim Charmers and a whole lot of people on the coalition side saying no, no deal. And then the Coalition came down said no, our position is again, don't realize capital games tax and against and for indexation. So the positions are clear. What we don't have is somebody saying, well,

hold on just a minute. If this has to pass and there is a mandate to pass it, there's no doubt about it. It is better. And this is what former governors of the Reserve Bank, former tax secretaries of the Treasury Department, in fact still huge liberal donors and former liberal politicians all saying to the coalition pass it in a better form. They're literally saying the lesser of two evils, wake up, smell the coffee. The government has

a huge majority in the House. They can deal purely with the Greens in the Senate and get things through. This is an issue where the Coalition needs to stand up and say we will try and regain some credibility and bargain for the best result. On superannuation and increase tax. There is a mandate for increased tax on some superannuation, but you can do it better. This is the same thing that happened with the super profits tax on mining.

The government pushed it through and by the way, Jim Chalmers was.

moment where Australian politicians need to grasp the reality. And this is particularly the Treasurer and some of those in the Coalition who don't seem to realize things have changed. Labor is in power for three years, the Greens have sole balance of power in the Senate, and the two major parties need to regain some credibility. Yes we need revenue, Yes there is a mandate to get it. It should be done in the best way.

They've had their pants pulled down and they're acting like they're tough guys. Give me a break.

This is what this will be the beginning of it. It will have a bad effect on superannuation, not to mention farmers and businesses and small businesses and investors. Yes, the government says it's only affecting a few people, but without indexation and with this principle of unrealized capital gains. An estimated number of people affected at the moment would be eighty to one hundred thousand, maybe one hundred and fifty thousand, but it goes to hundreds of thousands over

a few years because it's not index. And let's face it, everyone thinks, oh, three million dollars, that's a big that's a lot of superannuation. Well, no, it won't be in tea his time. It'll be average. The cost of the average house at the moment. Yes, in australia's a million dollars.

Donald Trump and albow in a moment. But I think you'd be interested as I'm sure, well you might even well know this, but I'm sure my listeners would as well. That there's been some contribution into the Trump Musk fiasco by a lawyer, David Showen, a criminal defense lawyer who represented Epstein before he died in police custody in twenty

nine ten. Now, of course, what has happened is Musk has gone on Twitter or x and he's made mention that in the Jeffrey Epstein file says mentioned of Donald Trump. I think Musk referred to this as time to drop the really big bomb. He said. The real reason the Epstein files haven't been released is because I named Trump, and then we get today from this David Showen, I can authoritatively, unequivocally and definitively say that Epstein had no

information to hurt President Trump. I specifically asked him. So that's from the lawyer working with Epstein before he died. Anyway, that's part of this sideshow. I mean, good luck Albow dealing with that. If he's in the room and there's cameras, who knows what Donald Trump will throw at the feet of our prime minister. But tariffs will be back at top of the agenda with next week's meeting in Canada. Mate, we're stealing beef topping that list.

the tariffs. Now. Originally, when the tariff first came up, Donald Trump specifically mentioned Australian beef producers and said Australia was not allowing as US beef into Australia because of tariffs,

and that they were responding now that wasn't true. Allowed the import of American beef if they can prove the biosecurity standards that they demand of Australian beef, and that is that you can after mad cow disease and a range of other diseases, that you can prove that your cattle that you are exporting, whether you killed or alive, have been where you can actually say the farm they've come from. Now in the US they can't do that.

Even if it's butchered, it may have come from Mexico, it may have come from Canada, and there is still a danger of mad cow disease in both Mexico and Canada. And so if we are going to accept US beef, then they have to demonstrate that it's a bio security issue and that it's safe and that comes from the US, not from Mexico or Canada. If they can't guarantee that,

we won't let that in. Now, this became an issue this week as tariffs raised again and Donald Trump put up steel tariffs again, and at first there was a big outcry from farmers. Anthony Albinezi responded quickly and said, look, we are not going to give in on biosecurity. We're not going to give on the beef. That is not a tariff issue. We're not giving in on it. And

so he realized the danger there and worked very quickly. However, next week, in the so called sidelines of the G seven meeting, the Prime Minister is due to meet Donald Trump and have a discussion. Tariffs will be part of that, a big part of that, and Australia has been trying for some time now since the introduction of the first tariff,

which included tariff's on penguins in Macquarie Island. We're trying to get a better deal on Australian steel and generally for Australia, but we're using mins critical minerals as a bargaining chip that we're saying we won't give way on our pharmaceutical schemes. We won't give way that's going to increase the cost of medicines on our PBS, and we won't give way on beef. So there's two areas there where the Prime Minister has already said we're not shifting.

And there are a whole range of other areas where the US, sorry, the UK and the US have come to agreements. Canada has had an agreement. So there are a few countries, and this week the US sent out a letter saying come to us with your best deal. The deadlines now. So next week we will see exactly what the Prime Minister can get out of Donald Trump,

if anything, using our store mineral of critical minerals now. Interestingly, Donald Trump said during the week that critical minerals were already a key issue in Ukraine because Ukraine has critical minerals, and that was also part of his discussion with Jijiping of China. So critical minerals are the key that we can use to get some room. But we shouldn't give way on beef, and which is a biosecurity issue, not a terrif issue.

five percent figure that came out of the US. But what we've actually got is clearly the US saying to us, and they've been saying to us all along and all their other allies, particularly in Europe, that we have to pull our own weight. We've had the US warning that there's possibility of a Chinese mainland China invasion of Taiwan being imminent and that this could occur before twenty twenty seven, and so there is huge pressure in the region on this.

The Prime Minister has been to Indonesia and talked about defence Singapore likewise, Now I think what we have to do, and I think this is what the Prime Minister could be doing. He could be waiting till he sees Donald Trump.

And then because Donald Trump's very keen about talking about not having any aces or any cards or any Trumps, and then the Prime Minister can say, well, as a matter of fact, we're looking at doing this ourselves and not being seen to be doing at the behest of Donald Trump, because he's very keen not to be seen to be doing that. But he's keeping his powder dry. People who say, oh, he hasn't you know, is rejected. No,

he hasn't rejected the calls. He has kept his powder dry and when the moment comes, he can then see whether it'll be enough.