3AW Neil Mitchell
E&OE
NEIL MITCHELL:
Minister good morning.
MINISTER MORRISON:
Good morning Neil, it is great to be here in Melbourne again.
MITCHELL:
The superannuation fees we have been talking, it is not strictly your area but do you know what is going on?
MINISTER MORRISON:
This is a change that was introduced by the previous government and it was a phased introduction of this so it is hitting those smaller funds now as I understand it. There were 12 adverse changes to superannuation under the previous government and for a large part of that time Bill Shorten was the Minister. That is why we are so adamant about not having adverse changes to superannuation, that’s why we aren’t going to increase taxes on superannuation, and why we are trying to provide stability and certainty around superannuation for the simple reason that we want people to invest in it.
MITCHELL:
Talking to Alex Malley from CPA earlier he said one of the benefits of being elected in government it becomes your problem. The problem is that people…
MINISTER MORRISON:
We got quite a bonus from the previous government on that fact; there were lots of problems that they left us.
MITCHELL:
One of the problems here is it is not being explained to people, they are just getting these extra fees and saying why, oh it is all the governments fault.
MINISTER MORRISON:
It really is a responsibility of the funds themselves and others to engage in communicating with their own customers on these things and their own people that they are working for but equally the government also – it may well be that the previous governments decision and policies and things we expressed reservations about at the time but I have no doubt that the governments great communicator Josh Frydenberg will be out there today and explaining these things as well. It really is something that is being implemented by the previous government that would have had legislation attached to that. These fees I am also advised will reduce over time as the infrastructure for the information to flow is put in place and we have got to keep a close eye on that to make sure they do drop. The problem with some of these fees is they stay and they stick and we can’t have that.
MITCHELL:
Ok, I’ll have to get to pensions in a moment and will take some calls, the changes on the assets test and pensions but it is reported today I think Minister Dutton has said Cabinet is unanimous on the laws to strip citizenship from jihadists trying to return to the country. Is that right, do you support it?
MINISTER MORRISON:
Of course I do and I have been a keen proponent of this for a long time. I noticed that Mark Dreyfus now and the Labor party are running a ‘bring them home’ campaign for terrorists. They are walking away from what was a brief period of bipartisanship on this after taking – Bill Shorten called it dog whispering in the Parliament.
MITCHELL:
Dog whistling?
MINISTER MORRISON:
Dog whistling or dog whispering, whichever one you want to use but no we absolutely support this because we don’t want to see these people come back. The reason for that is, Neil, is after the conflict in Afghanistan when there were fighters who did come back over that period of time their involvement in terrorist activity back in Australia was profound. We can’t allow that to happen, we cannot have a ‘bring them home’ campaign for terrorists which the Labor party seems to be running.
MITCHELL:
I think most people agree with that. The contentious point is who approves it, who makes the decision? Do you have the Minister make the decision or do you have a court make the decision that is the stumbling block?
MINISTER MORRISON:
Ministers can make that decision particularly for those who are overseas. Those who are overseas…
MITCHELL:
Aren’t you removing their rights?
MINISTER MORRISON:
You can’t run a shuttle from Syria back to Australia. They are over there, we can have very good intelligence about what they are up to and we have to prevent them from coming back and when we are in a position to do that by stripping them of their citizenship where they are a dual citizens we must do so.
MITCHELL:
Another area which is almost related, when you were Minister for Immigration were you aware of money being paid to people smugglers?
MINISTER MORRISON:
You’d expect me to give the exact same response I am going to give you, Neil. It was General Campbell that introduced the policy about commentary on these sorts of things and we don’t do it and I never did it and not about to start now.
MITCHELL:
Alright I will put it this way, would you be opposed to it philosophically if it happened?
MINISTER MORRISON:
I am not a philosopher, I am a Minister.
MITCHELL:
Ethically?
MINISTER MORRISON:
It is not my job to be an ethical, theologian or any of these things Neil. It is my job to do a job and my job was to stop the boats and that is what we did.
MITCHELL:
By hook or by crook?
MINISTER MORRISON:
We got it done, that’s the point. We got it done, that’s what we were expected to do and we got it done in the way we said we would do it, we did it in the way we said we would do it, and we got the result that we promised the Australian people.
MITCHELL:
Yes, but the Opposition is saying well it is like paying drug dealers not to sell ice.
MINISTER MORRISON:
The Opposition are a pathetic joke on this issue. They were exposed on this this week. Apparently they can comment on ‘on land matters’ but not on ‘on water matters’. That was an embarrassing press conference from Bill Shorten which was a horror week for Bill Shorten and the hypocrisy on this. I will give the Greens a plug on this; the Greens are at least consistent in their position on border protection. The Government is consistent on their position on border protection, the Labor party who knows, it is a lucky dip every single day they turn up on border protection, and the lucky dip is what the people smugglers play on and that is why it was such a disaster on their watch.
MITCHELL:
You say that you are confident Australian officers have acted lawfully, how come? How are you confident?
MINISTER MORRISON:
Because I know what we did and I know what it was about…
MITCHELL:
You do know what it was about?
MINISTER MORRISON:
…and I know it was lawful.
MITCHELL:
Under what law?
MINISTER MORRISON:
Under our law and under international law.
MITCHELL:
The Indonesians disagree strongly.
MINISTER MORRISON:
That wouldn’t be the first time.
MITCHELL:
So you know what happened and you just won’t tell us?
MINISTER MORRISON:
These are operational matters that go to the heart of national security and the integrity of operations that have delivered the result that we promised.
MITCHELL:
But there is also something very unusual and arguably debatable done in the name of the Australian people, haven’t they got a right to know?
MINISTER MORRISON:
I think that is an interesting debate and I am happy for the debate to happen.
MITCHELL:
Well how can it happen when nobody can tell us what happened?
MINISTER MORRISON:
Well you are having it now and you have it with your listeners, and you can have it with others but it is the government’s job to get results. It is not the government’s job to have an opinion, it is the government’s job to get results and this government has got results on boats.
MITCHELL:
So you are confident you know exactly what happened?
MINISTER MORRISON:
I am confident about all the activities of Operation Sovereign Borders.
MITCHELL:
And you are confident that you know what happened?
MINISTER MORRISON:
Operation Sovereign Borders matters were dealt with by Ministers, by Commanders, and there was a very strong chain of command.
MITCHELL:
Yes, but you said a moment ago you are confident you know what happened, is that right?
MINISTER MORRISON:
That is what I said.
MITCHELL:
But you know what happened?
MINISTER MORRISON:
Yes.
MITCHELL:
And it was legal?
MINISTER MORRISON:
Yes.
MITCHELL:
We will take some calls 96900 693. Pensions, now you have been criticised by groups like National Seniors group for the pension changes saying and I guess there is no way getting around it, it is what $2.4 billion over four years being saved.
MINISTER MORRISON:
That’s right.
MITCHELL:
So $2.4 billion out of pensioner’s pockets?
MINISTER MORRISON:
It is $2.4 billion of taxpayers’ money that will now be able to be put against the Budget task and it is a billion dollars a year. So I mean…
MITCHELL:
But it is $2.4 billion reducing pensions.
MINISTER MORRISON:
It is and what we are doing is we are increasing the pension, increasing the pension for the most vulnerable pensioners and we are putting 50,000 people who are now on a part pension we’re going to put them on a full pension. What this pension reform does is helps those who most need it and it ensures that those that have more substantial assets that they are able to draw on those assets in their retirement because that’s what the tax incentives for superannuation were for and when their assets fall to a level that would require them to be on a part pension then that part pension would be available to them, it’s a welfare payment – it’s not superannuation.
MITCHELL:
You can argue it rightly or wrongly but right or wrong by any definition you’re removing $2.4 million in pensioner’s money over 4 years?
MINISTER MORRISON:
Well it’s taxpayer’s money, Neil.
MITCHELL:
Oh yeah but it has been going to pensions, or would be going to pensions.
MINISTER MORRISON:
And there are reforms to pensions from time to time and these reforms ensure that those pensioners who need it most, the most vulnerable pensioners are getting more, $30.00 a fortnight more…
MITCHELL:
that’s a cut by any definition, has to be.
MINISTER MORRISON:
…not for those who are getting more.
MITCHELL:
But it’s a cut to pensioners.
MINISTER MORRISON:
It’s a cut to those that have assets with their own family home and assets of more than a million dollars, now we don’t think that we should be sustaining a system in a budgetary environment like this where those who have a million dollars and the family home should be getting a part pension…
MITCHELL:
So you’re reducing…
MINISTER MORRISON:
…and we want to increase the pension for those on very modest levels of assets. Now for couples with assets of up to $451,000 they are going to get an increase in their pension. For those single home owners who have $290,000 or thereabouts they are going to get an increase in their pension; more than 90 per cent of pensioners, no change or a better off position.
MITCHELL:
And a couple on a part-pension now over – is it $830,000 is it?
MINISTER MORRISON:
$823,000.
MITCHELL:
Ok, they lose their pension?
MINISTER MORRISON:
That’s right.
MITCHELL:
You know that assets test though that includes my bloody furniture, the couch that I sit on, that’s hardly an income earning asset.
MINISTER MORRISON:
I’ve heard that argument, five to seven per cent for home owners of their assets that are assessed for the pension are those types of things five to seven per cent, and what we’re saying is if you have assets greater then you will now be allowed to draw on a part pension, then the whole point of your superannuation is to draw down on it. Less than 1.9 per cent of an asset drawdown to maintain your current income is what would be required.
MITCHELL:
If I’ve got $800,000 in assets or if a couple has, apart from their family home, I agree and that’s a good thing that is exempted, by the time I’ve got a car, and some furniture and things and I haven’t got a Rembrandt hanging in the kitchen.
MINISTER MORRISON:
Five to seven per cent of your asset.
MITCHELL:
Say I’ve got about $700,000 in super earning money, what’s that going to earn me $20,000 a year?
MINISTER MORRISON:
But the whole point you can also draw down on your super, you can also draw down on…
MITCHELL:
So I’ve got to whittle away at the base?
MINISTER MORRISON:
That’s why tax concessions were put in place so people could build up a pool of assets, it wasn’t – it isn’t an inheritance allowance incentive, it’s a superannuation savings incentive and it’s your money and you should be able to use and you shouldn’t have it taxed which is what the Labor party want to do. So we’re not going to tax your super but we do expect that when people have worked hard to build a retirement savings pool that is there for their retirement.
MITCHELL:
We will take a break and calls then for the Minister Scott Morrison. 96900 693, 13 13 32 – pensions and anything else.
[Ad break]
CALLER:
I’d just like to say to Mr Morrison while he prattles on about the asset rich millionaires and all this what they seem to be either not acknowledging or hiding is the fact that someone on half that rate is losing say $300 a fortnight whereas the asset rich millionaire is losing say $30 a fortnight.
MITCHELL:
How does that work Ray, explain it?
CALLER:
You ask him, he is the one with the figures.
MITCHELL:
But I don’t understand the theory though.
CALLER:
You don’t understand the theory? The figures were provided. I haven’t got them sitting in front of me, it was a spur of the moment call but if you go up the scale a little bit more, if you have $600,000 in assets which as you said does include your household furniture or your car, caravan if you have got one you know. $600,000 I think you are losing around about $300 a fortnight. Go up the scale a little bit more then you lose $400 a fortnight and so on.
MITCHELL:
Ok, does that add up to you Minister?
MINISTER MORRISON:
Well all I can say is as your assets increase then you have a greater earning potentially obviously. I should stress…
MITCHELL:
He is saying it is badly weighted; the middle If you like is losing more as a percentage than the upper.
MINISTER MORRISON:
Well those who have assets over $823,000 as a couple lose the part pension all together. I think one of the issues here is that there is confusion between the pension and superannuation. The pensions a welfare payment, it is not a superannuation payment. It is something that is there…
MITCHELL:
People hate being told they’re on welfare.
MINISTER MORRISON:
I am not seeking to stigmatise welfare and I don’t think we should. I think people who need welfare should be able to access welfare on the basis of need and there should be no stigma attached to that. It is not a taxpayer funded welfare payment.
MITCHELL:
Is it your view the pension is an emergency payment?
MINISTER MORRISON:
No. I see it as a safety net payment for our society for those who, for whatever reason, were unable to build up a savings pool for their retirement. There are 1.7 million Australians who are in that situation. I don’t begrudge that whatsoever. That is why we are actually allowing 50,000 additional part pensioners to become full pensioners because they really need it.
MITCHELL:
So how many people will be affected by this?
MINISTER MORRISON:
Some 230,000 who will get a reduction in their part pension and there are 171,000 who will get an increase in their pension of which 50,000 will move to a full pension.
MITCHELL:
More about the health card, how is that affected?
MINISTER MORRISON:
The Commonwealth Seniors Health Card will be available to all of those who were adversely affected by these changes if they lose the part pension. So if you are one of those 91,000 you will get the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card which will give you the same access as a pensioner to discounted pharmaceuticals, bulk billing for medical purposes, and all of those sorts of things.
MITCHELL:
That is open-ended?
MINISTER MORRISON:
It is not open-ended but for those who are affected by these changes we are guaranteeing through the legislation that they will get that card.
MITCHELL:
Permanently?
MINISTER MORRISON:
Well yes that is the arrangement.
MITCHELL:
Steve, go ahead please. Yes, Steve.
CALLER:
Someone just coming into the system won’t get the Health Care Card. That is my first point but the second point is…
MITCHELL:
Sorry ok, well let’s explore that. What do you mean someone coming into the system? [inaudible]
CALLER:
the pension before the first of the first 2017, they came in February 2017 and they have got $900,000. They won’t get the Health Care Card.
MINISTER MORRISON:
Well no I disagree with that, it is quite likely someone in…
CALLER:
That person is not on the pension at the moment and your legislation only applies…
MITCHELL:
Well hang on Steve let’s pursue that.
MINISTER MORRISON:
They would otherwise be eligible, Neil, at that level.
MITCHELL:
So even though they are not entitled to a part pension and they are coming into the system…
MINISTER MORRISON:
It is not the pensioner concession card; it is the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card which is the card that goes to those who are not on the pension. So if you are on $900,000 or there abouts you would be likely to otherwise be entitled to that Commonwealth Seniors Health Card anyway. The vast majority of those who would be affected by these changes would otherwise be entitled; we are just going to guarantee it so no one misses out who were affected.
MITCHELL:
Ok Steve, you had other point?
CALLER:
You are lying but anyway…
MITCHELL:
Oi.
CALLER:
…regarding the assets test why are the people on high wealth clients not getting touched at all where the middle class is being touched? In my case I am losing $300 a week, I have retired, I can’t pick up that $300, I can’t get a job because I have based my retirement on $70,000 a year and you are just taking $15,000 out of my income. I was entitled to $15,000 and now it is dropping down to $1,500.
MINISTER MORRISON:
So what are you – what is your level of assets?
CALLER:
$780,000.
MINISTER MORRISON:
So you have $780,000 and…
CALLER:
Yes but I was getting $15,000 pension, now you have taken that away.
MINISTER MORRISON:
And you are a single pensioner?
CALLER:
No, I am a couple.
MINISTER MORRISON:
Well the assets cut off is $823,000.
CALLER:
No, because I have got the figures in front of me.
MINISTER MORRISON:
I am legislating them, it is $823,000.
CALLER:
All I am saying is my pension is going down from $15,000…
MITCHELL:
He is not losing it all.
CALLER:
…down to $1,773.
MITCHELL:
Yes you are not losing it all. Well the Minister has said to you what you have got to do is use your super base.
CALLER:
I am using that already. I am drawing down on it. All I want to give to my kids is my house. I am going to spend that $780,000 but now you have changed my lifestyle completely and I am going to get down to these lower figures much quicker. That is my argument.
MINISTER MORRISON:
I understand that.
CALLER:
The wealthy are being untouched; anyone who has got $1.2 million plus doesn’t get caught in this at all.
MINISTER MORRISON:
They are not getting a pension. They are currently not getting any pension.
CALLER:
Your rules, they were allowed to put in a million dollars and have a tax-free – so no matter how many millions they put in and they are getting the benefit of the Liberal party policy five or six years ago under Howard.
MINISTER MORRISON:
Well I understand that’s the Labor party’s argument that superannuation…
CALLER:
No, I am a Liberal supporter and I will not be voting Liberal especially if Labor change the rules. I have got three kids and if I let them know what the change – how that is going to affect their inheritance their votes will go to Labor.
MITCHELL:
Can we just focus on the issues, Steve. You say you’ve got about $700,000 in super correct?
CALLER:
Yes.
MITCHELL:
And you are now going to have to eat into that to maintain the lifestyle you had planned for with $15,000.
CALLER:
I was already but now I have to eat into it more.
MINISTER MORRISON:
To be specific the draw down that would be required for someone in that situation on the assets they hold is 1.38 per cent. So that’s the additional draw down on top of the draw down that you are already required to do….
CALLER:
What are you talking about?
MINISTER MORRISON:
Under the rules.
CALLER: What is this draw down of 1.38, what does that relate to?
MINISTER MORRISON:
It is the per cent of assets required to replace the age pension you would have otherwise received as a result of the changes.
MITCHELL:
So you are saying you would have to reduce his capital by 1.38 per cent?
MINISTER MORRISON:
That’s right.
CALLER:
That is gobbly goop. All I can see is I am reducing my income down by $13,500 not 1.78 or whatever you are talking about.
MINISTER MORRISON:
I understand that and…
MITCHELL:
This is the philosophical difference. You are saying that Steve and people like him have to use their base rather than to top up.
MINISTER MORRISON:
And when they get to a level which is $823,000 if you are no longer getting a part pension then the pension will kick in again. The part pension will kick in because the taxpayer incentives for superannuation that are provided are provided to ensure people can build up a pool that they can draw on, not pass on.
MITCHELL:
So do you accept that what Steve is saying is possibly right. He is going from $15,000 a year pension to $1,500?
MINISTER MORRISON:
Well his specifics – the figures I have would mean it would be around about $9,500 but whether that is true in his specific case could depend on any number of other things. The point is we are asking people where they have built those savings, they have worked hard for those savings, they draw on those savings in retirement, the pension is not a superannuation payment, that is not what it is, superannuation is a superannuation income and if your income or your assets then fall to a level which would mean you need the pension well the pension will be there for you and it means that the pension can be there for those on assets of less than a third of what the caller is referring to in his own situation.
MITCHELL:
Steve, thank you. I’d be interested in calls from non-pensions later in the morning too whether you agree with the principle that is being argued by the government here. We need to wrap up. Is Bill Shorten in strife? Now that is a Dorothy Dixer I know but you sit there opposite him, you won’t answer questions on the boats, he won’t answer questions on the boats, he’s got – he is going to appear before the Royal Commission on trades union corruption, is there anything wrong with that?
MINISTER MORRISON:
Look I am not going to go over the allegations against Bill Shorten. I think the key question people have in their minds is really this question of trust for Bill Shorten. I mean if – we know that Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard couldn’t trust him but I think these allegations around these issues is could the workers who he was working for trust him and what was his motive into entering into these arrangements? The question in people’s minds is Bill Shorten always seems to be doing something for Bill Shorten and was he doing it again on this case and if that’s the case who can trust Bill Shorten?
MITCHELL:
On another matter Joe Hockey has been chased around in circles for using his taxpayer allowance – living away from home allowance to pay for a mortgage on a property his wife owns. Financial Review has done the figures today 41 members of Parliament, many, many of them yours, many of them Liberal, Julie Bishop, Bronwyn Bishop, as well as Joe Hockey, Andrew Laming, Russell Matheson are getting taxpayer funded living away from home allowances to pay for properties they own, well help pay for properties they own in Canberra, paying off mortgages. Joe Hockey was criticised for it. Does that sit comfortably with you given we have – what we have just heard from Steve and people like him. Isn’t that a form of politician welfare?
MINISTER MORRISON:
Well there is a living away from home allowance effectively for politicians. I live in Sydney, I travel to Canberra and spend four nights there, and you get an allowance to be in Canberra for the nights that you stay there.
MITCHELL:
Do you stay at a hotel?
MINISTER MORRISON:
No, I rent a place with some others and whether you rent it or whether you are buying it.
MITCHELL:
Do you make a profit out of it?
MINISTER MORRISON:
No I wouldn’t – I don’t think so. No, I mean you have a living away from home allowance which covers your accommodation, it covers your meals and things which is the same as would be in place for people travelling on business.
MITCHELL:
Yes but we are talking about cracking down on welfare. We are talking about cracking down on welfare and here we have got people very well paid getting an allowance which I agree they are entitled to and using it to pay off a mortgage on a property they own. That is a rort. I know they could be renting.
MINISTER MORRISON:
So if they were renting or staying in a hotel what would be the difference?
MITCHELL:
Well they might be making a profit out of that. Your rent might be $10 a week and your allowances $500.
MINISTER MORRISON:
It is a fixed allowance which we don’t set. It is an allowance set by others. Those debates can be had by those who independently assess those things and I think politicians will keep to the rules that are put in place. When I came into Parliament the rules had been changed about defined benefit schemes.
MITCHELL:
Well you are changing the rules on pensioners what about changing the rules on politicians?
MINISTER MORRISON:
When I came into Parliament the rules changed on defined benefit schemes for politician’s superannuation as well. So these rules can change and they are set by others and we will comply with the rules that are there. I am not in a position to afford more than one house. So Jenny and I will keep paying that mortgage that is one enough for me.
MITCHELL:
I keep – nobody would deny that the politicians are entitled to a living away from home allowance but this just looks like profiting from it. It is profiting.
MINISTER MORRISON:
Well if the independent reviewers want to look at that that is up to them. I don’t plan to get into that debate and I am going to get on with the job that I have, Neil. I think in all these things you have got to pass the test of public opinion and you set the arrangements accordingly.
MITCHELL:
27 members of Parliament, 14 Senators own a residential or investment property in Canberra or their spouse owns it and their allowances are helping pay the mortgage.
MINISTER MORRISON:
And it is Labor politicians as well, I think we should stress that. All of these people…
MITCHELL:
Doug Cameron.
MINISTER MORRISON:
…No one is suggesting that anyone here is operating outside the rules that are set down.
MITCHELL:
No it is the morality of it. We are talking to Steve about $15,000 a year, we are talking about pensioners, part pensioners being cut back and we have got fat cats doing this. That is the problem.
MINISTER MORRISON:
Neil, I think that is a little unfair to characterise it that way where people – they could be renting, they could be owning. I pay a mortgage to live at my home in Sydney, I could be renting. My accommodation costs are my accommodation costs just like for any other Australian and there is a living away from home allowance for politicians when they go to another place. They are the rules and I think if the rules need to be reviewed, people have every entitlement to do that. It is not my job to defend those rules because I don’t set them.
MITCHELL:
You could go and live with Tony Abbott in the Police Headquarters where he sleeps in a monks bunk.
MINISTER MORRISON:
He does sleep in something of that nature but everyone will have their own arrangements and people should keep to the rules. But the bottom line is we have had a very big win for the Budget this week with the pension reforms changing and it shows that the ‘have a go’ Budget is definitely having a go.
MITCHELL:
Thank you for coming in.
MINISTER MORRISON:
Thanks Neil.