Latest / Inside Politics / Labor’s baby a ‘honeypot of fraud’ and the gas tax’s viral moment

Transcript

Labor’s baby a ‘honeypot of fraud’ and the gas tax’s viral moment · Inside Politics

• 0:00
  S1: Hi everyone, and welcome to Inside Politics. I am your host,
• 0:04
  S1: Jacqueline Maley. Back from a couple of weeks leave. Today
• 0:07
  S1: we're going to talk about one of the federal budgets,
• 0:09
  S1: trickiest customers, the National Disability Insurance Scheme. On the one hand,
• 0:14
  S1: you have some of the nation's most vulnerable people, the disabled,
• 0:18
  S1: who are highly anxious about the reforms to the scheme
• 0:20
  S1: that the Minister for the NDIS, Mark Butler, has announced
• 0:23
  S1: this week. But on the other hand, you have a
• 0:26
  S1: huge and unsustainable pressure on the federal budget that is
• 0:29
  S1: costing all taxpayers and a scheme, really, that is being
• 0:33
  S1: targeted by criminals intent on fraud. Joining me to discuss today,
• 0:38
  S1: we have our chief political correspondent, Paul Satchell, as usual,
• 0:41
  S1: and our special guest, federal political correspondent Natassia Chrysanthos, who's
• 0:46
  S1: been reporting extensively on the NDIS for many years now. Welcome, guys.
• 0:51
  S2: Hey, Jack. Good morning.
• 0:53
  S1: So before we get into the detail of what's been
• 0:55
  S1: announced this week by the NDIS Minister, Mark Butler, I
• 0:58
  S1: want to ask you both a broader question about the
• 1:01
  S1: social licence of the NDIS, because it was introduced by
• 1:04
  S1: the Gillard government in 2013 and it had bipartisan support.
• 1:08
  S1: And even more than that, it had unanimous support across
• 1:10
  S1: the Parliament. I remember that very well. I was reporting
• 1:13
  S1: in Canberra at the time, and it was the result
• 1:16
  S1: of the Every Australian Counts campaign, which exposed huge, horrible,
• 1:20
  S1: you know, disgraceful failures in the state based systems for
• 1:23
  S1: disability care. And I think ordinary Australians were very happy
• 1:26
  S1: to pay for it and to pay a bit of
• 1:28
  S1: extra in their Medicare levy to fund it. And now,
• 1:31
  S1: 13 years later, the scheme costs $50 billion a year.
• 1:34
  S1: Its rate of growth is a whopping 10%, which is
• 1:36
  S1: actually kind of relatively modest compared to what it was
• 1:39
  S1: under the Scott Morrison government, which was a 22% rate
• 1:42
  S1: of growth. And it's a huge pressure on the federal budget,
• 1:45
  S1: and it's a honeypot for criminals. Tasks. I want to
• 1:48
  S1: ask you, has has the NDIS completely squandered its social
• 1:52
  S1: licence at this point?
• 1:54
  S2: I think and and we heard again from the government
• 1:58
  S2: this week. It's commissioned its own research on this topic.
• 2:02
  S2: It found, based on the survey that it did, that,
• 2:04
  S2: you know, more than 6 in 10 Australians think the
• 2:06
  S2: scheme's broken. 7 in 10 think it's grown too large. Um,
• 2:10
  S2: I think the kind of polling that we've done through
• 2:12
  S2: our masthead shows a similar level of concern. I think
• 2:17
  S2: it has kind of gotten to the point as well,
• 2:19
  S2: where the narrative, like you say, of organised crime, of fraud,
• 2:23
  S2: of wasteful spending, of leakage, you know, some of that's anecdotal.
• 2:28
  S2: But the Audit Office also said in its report a
• 2:30
  S2: few years ago that up to 10% of the scheme
• 2:34
  S2: is wasted in fraud and non-compliance, as that kind of
• 2:39
  S2: headline figure has grown. I think that narrative has unfortunately shifted,
• 2:44
  S2: and that is why, um, there are people both in
• 2:47
  S2: the disability community, the disability sector and the government who
• 2:52
  S2: kind of say quite confidently at this point that the
• 2:54
  S2: scheme is at risk of losing public support. And I
• 2:57
  S2: think part of that also goes to the fact, you know,
• 2:59
  S2: Medicare that serves 27 million Australians. Um, the NDIS costs
• 3:03
  S2: more than that. Mhm. So it probably doesn't square with
• 3:06
  S2: people's expectations any longer.
• 3:09
  S1: Yeah. Paul, I want to ask you about this because
• 3:11
  S1: it struck me in Mark Butler's speech at the Press
• 3:13
  S1: Club this week that on the one hand, he said
• 3:16
  S1: it's a great labor achievement. It's one of the greatest
• 3:18
  S1: human rights achievements that Australia's ever had, which is a
• 3:20
  S1: huge claim. And maybe it's correct. But on the other hand,
• 3:24
  S1: you had a labor minister basically standing up and sort
• 3:26
  S1: of talking about how bad and how mismanaged labor program is.
• 3:31
  S1: So he talked about research that the government had commissioned about. Yeah.
• 3:35
  S1: Basically that it's lost some support amongst Australians and then
• 3:38
  S1: also said it was a honeypot for criminals. You know,
• 3:41
  S1: that it was an ATM for this kind of stuff.
• 3:43
  S1: It was really like they're almost trashing their own legacy
• 3:45
  S1: aren't they?
• 3:46
  S3: Yeah, it's it is fascinating. And all those things can
• 3:49
  S3: be true. When this scheme was set up, it was
• 3:52
  S3: a brilliant exemplar of the Australian social safety net. There
• 3:56
  S3: are many disabled Australians who struggle to get through life,
• 3:59
  S3: particularly severely disabled people who need their family to support them.
• 4:02
  S3: And he was a wealthy country saying we're going to
• 4:04
  S3: increase taxes slightly on all Australians to fund this really
• 4:07
  S3: noble scheme. But the rules that were put in place
• 4:10
  S3: at that time meant that over labor, governments under Gillard
• 4:14
  S3: and Rudd and then over the nine years of coalition
• 4:16
  S3: government and then the first few years of labor government,
• 4:19
  S3: this time the scheme became unruly. Effectively a false economy
• 4:23
  S3: was created where all of these new markets were set
• 4:25
  S3: up with people charging whatever they want for taking out
• 4:29
  S3: someone for a walk, for funding travel to regional areas
• 4:33
  S3: for mildly disabled people. So over time, you created this behemoth,
• 4:37
  S3: which was never the original intent.
• 4:40
  S2: When the scheme was set up, the point was to
• 4:44
  S2: get people onto it quickly, right? So that people could
• 4:46
  S2: access this support. The way the eligibility was therefore worked
• 4:49
  S2: out was that you would get in through primarily a
• 4:52
  S2: diagnosis list. And so the diagnosis list has a bunch
• 4:55
  S2: of different diagnoses. It doesn't have ADHD on there. It
• 4:58
  S2: does have autism on there. And the kind of criterion
• 5:01
  S2: for autism was like a level 2 or 3 diagnosis,
• 5:04
  S2: which according to the kind of psychiatrist manual, is when
• 5:07
  S2: you have higher levels of support needs, because there is
• 5:10
  S2: also a level one kind of support need autism diagnosis. Um,
• 5:14
  S2: what a lot of clinical professionals have said is that
• 5:17
  S2: you've kind of just seen clinicians move at large towards
• 5:21
  S2: only really diagnosing people with level two autism, because that
• 5:25
  S2: is how they know that their clients can get help
• 5:28
  S2: because you give someone a level one diagnosis, there's no help. Ah,
• 5:31
  S2: you give someone a level two diagnosis, they can access
• 5:33
  S2: the NDIS automatically. So that's why you've had this kind
• 5:36
  S2: of significant, you know, some would call it a blowout
• 5:39
  S2: number of participants with autism. Um, because the eligibility structure
• 5:45
  S2: kind of enabled an unlimited number of people with that
• 5:49
  S2: diagnosis to enter the scheme. And that's been one way.
• 5:51
  S2: It's evolved, which wasn't quite expected.
• 5:54
  S1: Yeah. So there's a moral hazard built in there because
• 5:56
  S1: if you're a doctor and you want your patient to
• 5:59
  S1: get support, of course you're going to push them in
• 6:01
  S1: the direction where they can get the most government support.
• 6:03
  S2: Yeah. And at this point, there have been academic studies
• 6:05
  S2: as well to show that there is a kind of
• 6:08
  S2: causal effect.
• 6:10
  S1: Yeah, yeah. Okay.
• 6:11
  S2: With NDIS rollout and diagnoses.
• 6:13
  S1: Okay. Let's talk about what Mark Butler did announce this
• 6:16
  S1: week at the Press Club. He gave a lot of
• 6:18
  S1: detail on the changes. These have all been foreshadowed. We
• 6:21
  S1: knew there was something coming. Did we expect it to
• 6:23
  S1: be quite this big task?
• 6:25
  S2: I think we expected it to be big. I would say,
• 6:31
  S2: I think, though, what we've seen in terms of how
• 6:34
  S2: the government's laid out its ambitions with NDIS growth has
• 6:38
  S2: been they want to see it grow at a kind
• 6:42
  S2: of similar pace to other social programs. So, say 5
• 6:44
  S2: or 6%. The national cabinet agreement between states and territories
• 6:48
  S2: said 5 to 6% or lower a year. A year? Yes.
• 6:52
  S2: I think what we didn't expect to see is, is
• 6:55
  S2: what Butler came out with yesterday and said, I'm actually
• 6:57
  S2: going to kind of make these major changes, which take
• 7:00
  S2: people off the scheme slash support, and we're going to
• 7:03
  S2: get it down to 2% on average for the next
• 7:06
  S2: four years, which is a cut in real terms, while
• 7:10
  S2: we kind of do major surgery on the scheme, and
• 7:13
  S2: once we're satisfied that it's been kind of fully reset,
• 7:15
  S2: restored back to its original purpose, then it can start
• 7:18
  S2: growing at that 5% rate.
• 7:20
  S1: Yeah. So, I mean, there was a lot of numbers
• 7:22
  S1: and it was a bit of a blizzard of statistics,
• 7:24
  S1: but basically it's a $35 billion cut over four years
• 7:28
  S1: and more than 150,000 people are going to be cut
• 7:30
  S1: from the scheme. They're going to overhaul the eligibility criteria,
• 7:33
  S1: as you just said. So that'll happen over the next
• 7:36
  S1: sort of 18 months, I think, or to two years,
• 7:38
  S1: everybody on the NDIS now, and I guess who joins
• 7:41
  S1: in the next little while will be reassessed. So that's
• 7:45
  S1: obviously hugely frightening for a lot of people, isn't it?
• 7:48
  S2: There's definitely a lot of, um, and I think there's
• 7:51
  S2: been anxiety among Australians with a disability for the last
• 7:54
  S2: three years, ever since the kind of Bill shorten, um,
• 7:58
  S2: when he was minister did set out this scheme needs
• 8:00
  S2: a reboot and it needs to be returned to its
• 8:02
  S2: original purpose. I think from that point, there has been
• 8:05
  S2: an assumption that people will be removed from the scheme eventually.
• 8:08
  S2: If it's going to do that, and a lot of
• 8:10
  S2: those people will probably be, you know, that large group
• 8:12
  S2: of of people with autism who have a different level
• 8:16
  S2: of need or a lower level of need to others
• 8:18
  S2: on the scheme. And so that anticipation, I think has
• 8:22
  S2: really been bubbling for a few years. The crux, I guess,
• 8:25
  S2: of the concern is that now that we know that,
• 8:29
  S2: you know, at least 160,000 people based on today's figures,
• 8:33
  S2: up to 300,000 people based on forecasts, because until things change,
• 8:37
  S2: people will keep joining the scheme every quarter. So we're
• 8:40
  S2: going to keep growing for for at least 18 months.
• 8:42
  S1: Yeah.
• 8:43
  S2: People then will be removed. And the big question is, well,
• 8:47
  S2: where do they go? A lot of state services have
• 8:50
  S2: dried up. There are now moves to put them back online,
• 8:52
  S2: but those negotiations have been thorny. They've been drawn out.
• 8:56
  S2: There is a lot of uncertainty. You know, it'll vary
• 8:58
  S2: from state to state as well when the states do
• 9:00
  S2: step back into this space. So there is a lot
• 9:03
  S2: of uncertainty. And I think, you know, people do fear
• 9:06
  S2: a reversion to the pre NDIS days of, you know,
• 9:10
  S2: having to fight for support and not being able to
• 9:13
  S2: get it and not knowing where to go.
• 9:14
  S1: Yes. And $10 billion has basically been allocated by the
• 9:17
  S1: government to the states to set up these, what they
• 9:20
  S1: call foundational support schemes. So for people, I suppose, who
• 9:23
  S1: are kicked off the NDIS with a lower level of need,
• 9:25
  S1: they'll be. The idea is that they'll sort of gravitate
• 9:27
  S1: back to the state based care. Paul, I want to
• 9:30
  S1: talk about the politics and notwithstanding, you know, incredibly vulnerable
• 9:34
  S1: people are, you know, their lives are affected, if not
• 9:37
  S1: completely changed by what was announced this week. But, you know,
• 9:41
  S1: Butler's language, as I said before, it was really strong.
• 9:43
  S1: He said it was the You know that the scheme
• 9:45
  S1: was an ATM for shanks, grifters, fraudsters and crooks, you know,
• 9:49
  S1: and the worst elements of organized crime. He talked about
• 9:52
  S1: hard but unavoidable decisions. And he said very bluntly that
• 9:55
  S1: the scheme cost too much and is growing too fast.
• 9:58
  S1: The rhetoric. I mean, how does that fit with the
• 10:00
  S1: overall message of the vibe that the government wants to
• 10:02
  S1: project in the lead up to the federal budget on
• 10:04
  S1: May 12th?
• 10:06
  S3: Well, this budget has been framed as one where the
• 10:09
  S3: government will make tough decisions to rein in the government's
• 10:12
  S3: spending trajectory. It's also been framed as one that will
• 10:15
  S3: take money out of the economy to deal with the
• 10:17
  S3: inflation crisis, which has persisted for longer than we thought
• 10:20
  S3: it would persist for. So it fits in that sense
• 10:23
  S3: with a government that's in its second term, has political
• 10:27
  S3: capital to spend after a massive election win, spent a
• 10:30
  S3: lot pre-election to win votes in truth, and doesn't have
• 10:35
  S3: an election for 2 or 3 years. So if there
• 10:36
  S3: was ever going to be a budget where the government
• 10:38
  S3: did make tough calls, this was going to be the one.
• 10:41
  S3: And to your point, Jack, on Mark Butler's language on
• 10:46
  S3: Shanks and Crooks and Criminals. This is all the language
• 10:49
  S3: that Bill shorten used last term as the NDIS minister,
• 10:53
  S3: when he tried to make the first steps towards reining
• 10:55
  S3: in this scheme. But in essence, Butler's changes yesterday go
• 11:00
  S3: far beyond the problem of just dealing with the criminal element,
• 11:03
  S3: which really always was a narrow, easy to argue political
• 11:06
  S3: point about bad faith operators. In essence, what Butler has
• 11:10
  S3: said is that this game has become totally unwieldy and
• 11:14
  S3: the essence of it needs to change. Diagnosis is not
• 11:16
  S3: enough if you're severely disabled and your functional capacity to
• 11:21
  S3: live is in question, then this scheme is for you.
• 11:24
  S3: And so those people should not be scared. But this
• 11:27
  S3: false economy that's being created, these false incentives that are
• 11:30
  S3: damaging to the economy because the care sector has grown
• 11:33
  S3: so significantly since the NDIS has been sparked. It's an
• 11:37
  S3: unproductive part of the economy. That's where a lot of
• 11:39
  S3: jobs are being created at a time when the private
• 11:41
  S3: sector is struggling. So this is not just damaging to
• 11:45
  S3: the budget, but arguably has been really deleterious for our
• 11:48
  S3: overall economy.
• 11:50
  S1: Um, I was actually quite surprised and shocked to learn
• 11:53
  S1: about some of the lack of integrity measures within the scheme.
• 11:56
  S1: So it's not a digital system, so you don't even
• 11:59
  S1: have to kind of upload the evidence for your claim
• 12:02
  S1: to some sort of, you know, like you do when
• 12:04
  S1: you make a medical claim, you have to upload a doctor's, um,
• 12:07
  S1: a doctor's invoice. He said that there are around 600,000
• 12:11
  S1: claims made every day without supporting evidence, and some of
• 12:13
  S1: the providers aren't even required to be registered. So tell
• 12:17
  S1: us about that.
• 12:17
  S2: Well, only 6.5% of providers are registered. So 94% are thereabouts,
• 12:23
  S2: operate unregistered. Just to go back to what we were
• 12:27
  S2: talking about before, when I was, you know, writing a
• 12:29
  S2: piece on this the other week, I spoke with John
• 12:31
  S2: Della Bosca, who was the New South Wales disability minister,
• 12:34
  S2: and then he resigned to head up every Australian counts.
• 12:37
  S2: And he referenced something that someone said to him once
• 12:40
  S2: about the scheme, which is, you know, it was like
• 12:43
  S2: building a jumbo plane while it was in the air.
• 12:46
  S2: Like this scheme got off the ground so quickly, it
• 12:49
  S2: didn't have the kind of checks, balances, guardrails that you
• 12:52
  S2: expect of a government scheme that is, you know, giving
• 12:55
  S2: providers taxpayer money. There were some elements that I think
• 13:00
  S2: were well intended. For example, the lack of provider registration
• 13:04
  S2: was supposed to enable choice so that people could choose
• 13:07
  S2: the providers that they wanted. This kind of reasonable and
• 13:11
  S2: necessary support was supposed to allow flexibility in practice. It's
• 13:16
  S2: meant that it's been quite loose. So there were all
• 13:19
  S2: these all these kind of things that either, you know,
• 13:22
  S2: from a good intention or because it was done in
• 13:24
  S2: a hurry, have meant that that 15 years later, this
• 13:27
  S2: or 13 years later, there are. And Butler is a
• 13:31
  S2: health and aged care minister who oversees those schemes that
• 13:34
  S2: run very differently, I think is particularly attuned to this. Um,
• 13:37
  S2: It's not running in the way that you expect a
• 13:40
  S2: $50 billion government scheme to run.
• 13:43
  S3: And that's shocking mismanagement when you when you think about
• 13:45
  S3: how poor the integrity measures are. I mean, yeah, those
• 13:48
  S3: stories about receipts being filed and they just get approved
• 13:51
  S3: no matter what they say. I mean, how labor will
• 13:54
  S3: get a lot of credit for cleaning this up because
• 13:56
  S3: it is quite bold and striking how far they've gone,
• 13:59
  S3: but should never have been allowed to get here.
• 14:02
  S1: Yeah. That's that is what is so shocking, I think.
• 14:05
  S1: And it's successive governments like it's, it's a it's a
• 14:07
  S1: bipartisan failure.
• 14:08
  S2: Political obstruction.
• 14:10
  S3: To a.
• 14:11
  S2: Lot of changes. Yeah.
• 14:13
  S1: Yep. That's absolutely true. Paul, just quickly, um, tell us
• 14:16
  S1: about what you think the political blowback will be or
• 14:18
  S1: the political reaction from both sides of politics on this?
• 14:22
  S1: And is the government in any sort of danger of, um, of,
• 14:25
  S1: of not getting the legislation through?
• 14:27
  S3: Yeah. Well, we were all talking before this show about
• 14:29
  S3: whether labor had, you know, spent some of its much
• 14:33
  S3: talked about political capital on this change. I think in
• 14:35
  S3: some senses they have This is their baby. This is
• 14:38
  S3: a labor scheme that, you know, for before it really
• 14:41
  S3: became such a controversial scheme, there were labor MPs put
• 14:44
  S3: in the NDIS logo on campaign material. So labor had
• 14:47
  S3: for periods, um conceived of the NDIS as a, as
• 14:50
  S3: a kind of Medicare like new part of the Australian
• 14:54
  S3: political settlement. So it's incredible how how sharply it's dropped
• 14:58
  S3: in the public's mind. Labor will have a huge fight
• 15:01
  S3: with elements of the disability community over this. No doubt,
• 15:04
  S3: even though they want to protect severely disabled, there will
• 15:06
  S3: be a scare campaign. No doubt the Greens are already
• 15:09
  S3: fighting against it. Other elements of the welfare establishment will
• 15:13
  S3: fight it. The coalition was gearing up to make significant
• 15:16
  S3: proposals to cut the NDIS, so I imagine it will
• 15:18
  S3: be a bipartisan process from here on it. The other
• 15:23
  S3: element of the politics that I think is, is notable
• 15:25
  S3: is that there's a big question about this. Government has
• 15:27
  S3: been can a centre left labor government which is keen
• 15:31
  S3: to build this, you know, stronger safety net? We saw
• 15:34
  S3: that at the last election with its big Medicare spend,
• 15:36
  S3: can it actually pare back the size of government? Can
• 15:40
  S3: it bring the budget back into order and make a
• 15:42
  S3: tough call? This decision has to some extent proven that
• 15:45
  S3: it can do that when it has the will to
• 15:47
  S3: do so. I think that's an important political moment and
• 15:49
  S3: an important reminder that this government has a pragmatic streak
• 15:54
  S3: in it, and it can counter right wing arguments about
• 15:57
  S3: budget management.
• 15:58
  S2: I think the question will be whether it's too ambitious,
• 16:01
  S2: like they're trying to do a lot in four years.
• 16:02
  S2: It's delivering them an overnight budget saving that's going to
• 16:05
  S2: help them a lot come next month.
• 16:08
  S3: Is there a risk they can't get it down as
• 16:10
  S3: significantly as they've.
• 16:11
  S2: Well, I think the fact that they've tried to get
• 16:12
  S2: it down, it's taken so long to get it's taken
• 16:14
  S2: four years to get it down to 10%. If you
• 16:16
  S2: look at the breakdown of what's expected, they'll probably. They
• 16:20
  S2: wanting to get to 4% next year and then keep
• 16:22
  S2: it at 1% for the three years after that. That's
• 16:25
  S2: a huge overnight change and the like. The other thing is,
• 16:29
  S2: even if they were really hell bent on doing it, which,
• 16:32
  S2: you know, they've they said they are you do have
• 16:36
  S2: to co-design this stuff with people with a disability. That is.
• 16:38
  S2: That is the kind of promise of the scheme. You know,
• 16:42
  S2: the new eligibility tool will have to be worked through.
• 16:45
  S2: The new planning tool that they've been working on has
• 16:47
  S2: now been its rollout has been delayed. The thriving kids,
• 16:50
  S2: the new scheme for for kids with autism and development
• 16:53
  S2: delay that's been delayed, these things get delayed because they're
• 16:56
  S2: really complex reforms that need to have humans at the
• 16:59
  S2: heart of them. And the other thing is, like all
• 17:01
  S2: of these NDIS rules, so many of them are written
• 17:03
  S2: into legislation like you get into legal barriers, you're dealing
• 17:06
  S2: with technical complexity. It's a really.
• 17:09
  S3: Yeah, government says they want to overrule court decisions. They
• 17:12
  S3: also decisions.
• 17:13
  S2: Now it's gonna be really hard.
• 17:15
  S1: They all they all are required. Um, they require the
• 17:20
  S1: buy in of the states as well, which they've kind
• 17:22
  S1: of got in principle with the possible exception of Queensland.
• 17:25
  S1: And we don't really have time to get into that.
• 17:27
  S1: But basically a lot of the budgetary sort of weight
• 17:30
  S1: they're pushing off onto the states or a lot of
• 17:32
  S1: these people will be pushed off onto the States, which
• 17:34
  S1: is always a kind of attention in our in our
• 17:37
  S1: federal system tasks. It's been so fascinating to talk about this,
• 17:41
  S1: and I want to get you back on, particularly as
• 17:43
  S1: you say, we want to keep covering the rollout of
• 17:45
  S1: these cuts and how they affect real people. And, you know,
• 17:49
  S1: the very, very vulnerable people who are at the heart
• 17:50
  S1: of this scheme. So thank you.
• 17:52
  S2: Thanks for having me.
• 18:02
  S1: Paul, I wanted to ask you quickly about the lobbying
• 18:04
  S1: that's been happening this week in Canberra for a gas tax,
• 18:06
  S1: a gas on offshore gas exports. There's been a parliamentary
• 18:11
  S1: inquiry that's hearing submissions, right?
• 18:13
  S3: Yeah. There's been a parliamentary inquiry chaired by the Greens
• 18:18
  S3: into this. This issue was really catapulted in terms of
• 18:22
  S3: its significance in public debate in recent months. The ACTU,
• 18:25
  S3: the Peak Union body, various other unions, the Australia Institute,
• 18:29
  S3: which is this influential think tank and activist organization with
• 18:33
  S3: links to the teal Independents and Greens, various online influencers.
• 18:39
  S3: Several Labour backbenchers, including the former industry minister Ed Husic,
• 18:43
  S3: have all been arguing firmly that gas companies are not
• 18:46
  S3: paying enough tax. Their stuff comes out of the ground
• 18:49
  S3: in Australia. It's owned by Australians and we should reap
• 18:52
  S3: greater profits. And this argument is just like the NDIS
• 18:55
  S3: actually goes all the way back to the last Labour government.
• 18:59
  S3: Listeners may recall that the Rudd government attempted to put
• 19:03
  S3: in a 40% mining super profits tax in 2010 or 11.
• 19:07
  S3: You probably were in Canberra, Jack. That was defeated after
• 19:09
  S3: a big scare campaign from the resources sector. Over recent years,
• 19:15
  S3: labor has tried to tweak the Petroleum Resource rent tax,
• 19:19
  S3: which does tax large profits, but they haven't been able
• 19:22
  S3: to eek much out. It only brings in about $2
• 19:25
  S3: billion a year because of a loss carryback provision, which
• 19:28
  S3: means that these massive LNG facilities, which cost so much
• 19:31
  S3: money to build. The loss is incurred on those capital investments,
• 19:35
  S3: can just be deducted over time.
• 19:37
  S1: Yeah. And so the argument of the people proposing the
• 19:40
  S1: tax that they want a 25% flat tax on all
• 19:44
  S1: of these profits. So they're they're saying basically that it's
• 19:48
  S1: a disgrace that these are Australian Australian resources. They're owned
• 19:51
  S1: by the Australian taxpayer. And other countries like Japan are
• 19:55
  S1: profiting off our gas. There was a viral video. David Pocock,
• 19:58
  S1: the independent senator, asking a Treasury official in estimates to
• 20:03
  S1: basically getting him to admit that the government makes more
• 20:07
  S1: money from beer excise than it does from offshore gas exports,
• 20:10
  S1: at least at the moment. He was asking. So Ken Henry,
• 20:12
  S1: the former Treasury secretary, says Australians are big losers who
• 20:15
  S1: pay high energy prices, while the shareholders of these big
• 20:18
  S1: multinational energy companies are making big profits. But at this
• 20:22
  S1: particular moment in time, it's kind of politically tricky to
• 20:27
  S1: do anything about this, isn't it?
• 20:28
  S3: Yeah. The activists have run into an issue at this
• 20:32
  S3: moment in time, which our colleague Mike Foley has written about,
• 20:34
  S3: which is the fact that in this fuel crisis, given
• 20:37
  S3: how exposed Australia is due to its low fuel reserves.
• 20:40
  S3: Anthony Albanese has been running around Asia to Brunei and
• 20:43
  S3: Malaysia and Singapore and other places, doing deals with big
• 20:48
  S3: fuel exporters to say we have heaps of LNG here.
• 20:51
  S3: You need our LNG to power your economies, which many
• 20:54
  S3: of these countries do rely on. Australia will continue supplying
• 20:57
  S3: that LNG at high volumes and at reasonable prices, as
• 21:00
  S3: long as we can guarantee fuel exports coming into Australia.
• 21:03
  S3: So the government has been playing down the prospect of
• 21:06
  S3: this gas tax after Jim Chalmers, and there was a
• 21:10
  S3: leak that showed that the government was exploring doing something
• 21:12
  S3: on this in the budget. The PM has been publicly
• 21:15
  S3: downplaying the prospect of a gas tax, but without ruling
• 21:18
  S3: it out and leaving the option open for a more
• 21:21
  S3: minor version of the tax, which could slap some levies
• 21:26
  S3: on future Uncontracted gas.
• 21:28
  S1: Mhm. Yeah. Because a lot of it, of course, is
• 21:30
  S1: tied up in contracts. So there's a critics of the
• 21:34
  S1: tax idea say that basically it's a sovereign risk issue
• 21:37
  S1: because we'd be breaking the promises we've made via long
• 21:40
  S1: term contracts with multinationals in other countries.
• 21:43
  S3: Just on the point of the very catchy element of
• 21:45
  S3: this debate around how gas firms pay less in tax
• 21:49
  S3: than beer companies. That's gone viral online, particularly via, you know,
• 21:55
  S3: really savvy younger politicians like David Pocock, but also the
• 21:58
  S3: Australia Institute and an influencer called Punters Politics, who people
• 22:03
  S3: may know from Instagram who is quite well known.
• 22:06
  S1: He's got a million followers, and he actually showed up
• 22:08
  S1: in Canberra and gave evidence to this inquiry. So, I mean,
• 22:10
  S1: it was kind of a really interesting crossing of streams
• 22:13
  S1: between mainstream media and, um, and, you know, viral social
• 22:16
  S1: media influencers like him who are enormously popular, I think,
• 22:20
  S1: with the kinds of people who probably don't listen to
• 22:21
  S1: this podcast or read even the Sydney Morning Herald or
• 22:25
  S1: The Age. Dare I say.
• 22:25
  S3: It? Totally true. The misleading element of that campaign is that, yes,
• 22:29
  S3: the PR, which is this super profits tax on gas firms,
• 22:33
  S3: does not reap as much as the beer excise tax
• 22:36
  S3: does in one year. But the element that the Australian
• 22:39
  S3: Institute and punters politics leave out every time they talk
• 22:42
  S3: about this is the fact that gas firms pay really
• 22:45
  S3: large amounts of company tax. Yeah. State royalties, particularly in Queensland,
• 22:49
  S3: their overall contribution to government tax coffers last year was
• 22:53
  S3: about $22 billion. Chevron is actually one of the largest
• 22:56
  S3: payers of corporate tax now. There is a strong argument
• 22:59
  S3: put by Chris Richardson, Ken Henry, various others that they
• 23:02
  S3: should be paying more. And our resources. Taxes have been
• 23:05
  S3: broken for a long time. But is it as cut
• 23:07
  S3: and dry as they pay less than beer firms? And
• 23:10
  S3: these guys are absolutely robbing us dry.
• 23:13
  S1: Perhaps not a tax on beer. I mean, could there
• 23:15
  S1: be anything more un-australian than that? Reaping more money than
• 23:19
  S1: a tax on offshore gas exports? I think that's where
• 23:22
  S1: they were going with that.
• 23:23
  S3: I paid 1850 for a pint of Guinness in Melbourne
• 23:26
  S3: on the weekend.
• 23:27
  S1: That's that is that is a well, I don't even know.
• 23:31
  S1: I mean, it's a tragedy, a travesty, an un-australian act.
• 23:35
  S1: It's a disgrace. Bottom line. Do you think the government's
• 23:39
  S1: going to do anything about this in this next coming budget,
• 23:42
  S1: or indeed after that?
• 23:44
  S3: I think it's unlikely in the budget. If they do
• 23:47
  S3: do something which is still a possibility, it will not.
• 23:50
  S3: It will not be the 25% export tax, because there
• 23:53
  S3: are legitimate arguments from the sector, and some others are
• 23:58
  S3: around the place, that it may be a sovereign risk issue.
• 24:02
  S3: And given even if that's a small prospect, the government
• 24:05
  S3: won't want to do anything at this point to jeopardise
• 24:07
  S3: relationships with Asian trading partners. So if the government does
• 24:11
  S3: proceed with it, and Chalmers and others in the government
• 24:14
  S3: are keen to see something to bring in more revenue
• 24:16
  S3: to fund a broader business tax incentive package and tax
• 24:19
  S3: breaks for business to stimulate investment. It will be smaller
• 24:23
  S3: than what's been proposed by advocates. But it's not um
• 24:26
  S3: it's not likely but it's not ruled out either.
• 24:29
  S1: Okay. Let's keep an eye on that and I will
• 24:31
  S1: let you go, Paul. And, you know, have a Guinness
• 24:33
  S1: on me tonight. Um, or indeed earlier than you can
• 24:37
  S1: have it at lunchtime if you want to.
• 24:39
  S3: Oh, thanks for the approval.
• 24:40
  S1: Yeah. Thanks again. See you next week.
• 24:42
  S3: Thanks, Jack. Bye.
• 24:49
  S1: You can read all of our political news on our websites,
• 24:52
  S1: the age.com.au or smh.com.au. Today's episode was produced by Kai
• 24:58
  S1: Wong with help from Debbie Harrington. Our executive producer is
• 25:02
  S1: Tammy Mills, and our podcasts are overseen by Lisa Muxworthy
• 25:05
  S1: and Tom McKendrick. Before you go, follow Inside Politics and
• 25:09
  S1: leave us a review on Apple or Spotify. I'm Jacqueline Maley,
• 25:13
  S1: thank you for listening.