Latest / The Morning Edition / 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 · The Morning Edition

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
8:37
S2: things change, people will keep joining the scheme every quarter.
8:39
S2: So we're going to keep growing for for at least
8:41
S2: 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.