E&OE   

LAURA TINGLE: 

Well, thanks, Angus. If I could take up a couple of things you have highlighted in the speech. One was you said that Labor had basically had produced low growth that had only been fuelled by population growth. You've highlighted a per capita recession since that time, and also you talked about the net overseas migration numbers now being about 1.6 million. The last figure for a five year period before the pandemic interrupted things was actually 1.3 - I think 1.35. So it's not that different over a five year period now, considering the surge we had post COVID. On that basis, could you confirm that the Coalition's position is that you would be looking to get the net overseas migration number down to 160,000? And if that's the case, doesn't that imply from your own analysis that we wouldn't just be looking at a per capita recession, we'd be looking at an actual recession?  

ANGUS TAYLOR:  

Well, a couple of comments I'd make about this. And it's a very good question, Laura, an important question. The reason we've got a GDP per capita recession is the country is going backwards. Productivity has collapsed in an unprecedented way, as I said in my speech. Over 6 per cent, we haven't seen that before and that is weighing heavily on the ability of businesses to pass on increases in real wages. I mean, it's all well and good to have increases in nominal wages, but it's what's in your pay packet that counts. And as long as productivity has collapsed the way it has, then it's very hard to see a pathway without being in a GDP per capita recession, which is a situation we have, and it's GDP per person that counts. This is the crucial point, if you're in a household, GDP per person is the thing that affects your prosperity and so that's why we put so much focus on it. We're not, absolutely not against immigration, as I said, in my speech, I mean, we're a proud immigrant nation, and as you pointed out, we had sensible levels of immigration when we were in power, but those numbers have got out of control. It's 1.67 by the way, is the latest number and you've got to remember, every number Labor gives us goes up. They try to spin it - the MYEFO, they said oh, you know our forecasts are changing, we're going to cut on the forecasts. They went up and they keep going up. So who knows where they're going to end up. In answer to your question about NOM we've said over the coming years, we'll achieve a 25 per cent reduction in the NOM versus what Labor... 

LAURA TINGLE:  

I think that was the permanent migration number... 

ANGUS TAYLOR:  

And the NOM. And so that's a reasonable number, we think, to achieve. Permanent migration is part of that. So too, as I said in the speech is making sure that we've got a sensible level of international students and you know, it's an important sector and we want to see it continue to prosper. But we've seen those numbers get to levels they never were at prior to COVID. There's been a massive escalation in those numbers in the last couple of years, and we think we can achieve a NOM - that's the Net Migration in Australia, which is consistent with a level of housing supply that is realistic, you can't move housing supply overnight and so you got to bring those two numbers into line.  

LAURA TINGLE:  

Sorry. So just to confirm, you're saying a 25 per cent cut in net overseas migration. 

ANGUS TAYLOR:  

That's right. 

MARK RILEY:  

That's what we call a story. Mr. Taylor, Mark Riley from the Seven Network. Thank you very much for your address and taking our questions today, much appreciated. I want to ask you about again, today, you've rejected the production tax credits in the budget as corporate welfare. But before and during the 2022 election, you as Energy Minister promised about $1.5 billion dollars in upfront handouts to many of the very same projects, just having a look at them now. There were $800 million to hydrogen hubs, half a billion dollars to critical minerals projects. Isn't it hypocritical now to reject production tax credits, on the basis of having promised upfront subsidies and handouts only a couple of years ago to the same project?  

ANGUS TAYLOR:  

Well, Mark, thank you for the question, but we never promised production tax credits. I mean, that's for an operating business. Our focus was on R&D, it was in the front end of research and development to get technologies that are still in reasonably early stages to a point where they can be run commercially and profitably by businesses making commercial and profitable investments. Government has always had a role in R&D, but that's not what we're talking about here with production tax credits. This is a subsidy for every unit of production. I mean, if I went out, walked out this door now or said to you now, we're going to give $1 to every cafe owner for every coffee they produce. That's a production tax credit, but I don't think the cafes of Australia expect that. They know they've got to produce a great product, for great customers, that their customers want to pay for, and from which they can make a profit and that's what we should expect from businesses in Australia and you know the broader point here is this. I'm a huge believer in our manufacturing and resources sector, as I said, it's a sector I've worked in for many years before politics, but I know that it succeeds because you get the fundamentals right. It succeeds because you get your approvals, right. You get red tape out of the way. You make sure your industrial relations laws are good for both employee, and employer. All of those things are necessary and frankly, they're the key to making it succeed. You don't get any production tax credits if there's no production and they key is to help these companies to succeed by getting the fundamentals right.  

DANA DANIEL:  

Dana Daniel, from The Canberra Times, thank you for your speech. You said the government is wasting money on a bloated public service with 36,000 new roles. Where do you see the greatest fat in the public service that the Coalition would look to cut back? Would you bring back the APS cap? And would you decentralise the public service by moving agencies out of Canberra to the regions or other cities? 

ANGUS TAYLOR:  

No, all good questions and be patient, more detail on those numbers will be forthcoming, but the important point here is this, we don't think now is the time to add 36,000 Commonwealth public servants. There's not many Australian businesses, who are the taxpayers, of course, and Australian households, who are able to expand in that kind of way. And we think just as Australian households and businesses are having to show frugality or having to make ends meet, so too should the Commonwealth Government. So, Peter Dutton has already made some comments about how we would see some reallocation of those numbers towards national security roles and defence roles, but the important point here is now is not the time to expand government. Now is the time to make sure government lives within its means so that households don't have to do the hard work for government because ultimately, it's households and businesses that pay the taxes that pay for those public servants. 

PHIL COOREY:  

Thanks Mr. Taylor. Just to ask about taxation. You've already said before this speech today, you'd look at what you could afford to do on income tax closer to the election within the spirit of stage three. You've said today, you've noted our high company tax rates, and you've said the extension of the instant asset write off is a down payment. Could I take that to mean that your medium term plans will include another examination of the company tax rate, or other business taxes? And just in continuation with your low tax philosophy, how do you reconcile that with your pledge to get the budget back into structural surplus, especially if you're going to put that 23.9 per cent speed limit back on?  

ANGUS TAYLOR:  

So, a number of questions in there Phil, all good questions. Of course, one of them is asking me, as you always do, to announce policy, additional policy to what we've already announced, today which I won't do. But I will say you talked about my comment about company taxes. I mean, this is why accelerated depreciation is so powerful. It is an unbelievably effective way to drive productivity, growth, job creation, risk taking that you desperately need in the economy and the small business sector is crucial to doing that and so Labor has refused to reinstate accelerated depreciation back to where it was prior to COVID. They're looking for all sorts of excuses on that, but they haven't done it. We think that does need to be reinstated, but more than that, we think it needs to be a permanent part of our tax regime, which will help small businesses to make those investments and have incentives to do it. The other point I would make about your overall comments is the best way to beat bracket creep is to have lower inflation. The reason personal income taxes have gone up by 23 per cent, I mean, it's a stunning number, a very small part of that is population growth, by the way, in total, it's 23 per cent. The vast majority of that is inflation driven. If you want to get personal income taxes down and stop them creeping away like a thief in the night, you've got to get inflation down. Governments do well out of high inflation, this government has done well out of high inflation, but households don't. Effectively what our tax system does is take from households and gives to the government. And our philosophy is very different. To your point about how do you make sure that you can deliver lower taxes and structural balance over time? You make sure the economy grows faster than your spending. It is a very simple formula. It has worked for a long time. And it's a formula that this government has ditched. And we see in the next two years going to a big structural deficit and a 16 per cent increase in spending in just two years.  

LAURA TINGLE: 

Could I just clarify, chasing up Phil's question, are you perpetually wedded to 23.9 per cent GDP. 

ANGUS TAYLOR: 

 Yeah that's the tax to GDP.  

LAURA TINGLE:  

So it's just a made up number?  

ANGUS TAYLOR:  

Well, some might say that, but it's been around for a while, Laura and you've got to pick a number that you think  

LAURA TINGLE:  

It's not based on any science.  

ANGUS TAYLOR: 

Well the science here is that if you if you grow the economy faster than your spending, your budget position is constantly improving and that can do two things: one, it can strengthen your budget position. And secondly, it can help to support maintaining tax to GDP at a level which is sustainable over the medium to longer term. And we want to do both.  

TOM CONNELL: 

Tom Connell from Sky News. Just casting my mind back to the last time the Coalition won office when Labor was in power and similarities with the Coalition narrative here like, wasteful Labor spending that the Coalition would end. It's fair to say when you got to power that first budget still seemed to take people by surprise though in terms of the spending cuts. So I'm just wondering your approach this time around. Will you be really detailed, if you win power, and then you hand out your first budget or hand down your first budget, there won't be major surprises in terms of spending cuts, you've suddenly had to find?  

ANGUS TAYLOR:  

Well, we plan to announce our policies before the election, not like Anthony Albanese who's announced many of them, particularly in the tax area since the election, whether it's franking credits, or indeed, the stage three tax cuts, and so on. He's done much of that since the election and continues to and we'll see how much more of that there is. Superannuation is another example of that. So we do plan to. But the key to this, and we realised this, I think, during our last term of government, and Mathias Cormann, and other Finance Ministers and Treasurers focused on it relentlessly. You've got to make sure your economy grows faster than your spending, Tom. That doesn't mean scorched earth, it means restraint. It means there's discipline on colleagues. What I see in Labor right now, is those disciplines are not there. They're not there. I mean, every Minister will always have an idea about something they could spend money on, but there has to be restraint, just as there's restraint right now in households and businesses across Australia. And to do that you've got to have simple rules, which we did drive and succeed in delivering in that period leading up to COVID. So that's the key. That's the key. And that's why bringing back that fiscal rule is so important. It gives Australian taxpayers certainty, it gives all Australians certainty, but also it also creates a discipline within government, which I think is crucially important. 

TOM CONNELL:  

No scorched earth meaning it'll happen slowly? 

ANGUS TAYLOR:  

It's restraint. I mean, it's sensible here. This is about making sure that you grow the economy faster than your spending. It's like every business person in Australia has to have a rule, something like that, to make sure that there's a fair deal there for shareholders, as well as employees and customers. And this is just sensible back to basics stuff. There's nothing shiny and new about it. But it's been ditched by the government. This is the point. They've given up the ghost on this stuff. They've put up the white flag. And that's why you see the 16 per cent increase in spending in two years.  

DAVID SPEERS: 

 David Speers from the ABC. Angus, thank you for your speech. I was going to ask you about nuclear policy, but I think I need to clear up migration. You've said a 25 per cent reduction in the net overseas migration intake is the Coalition's policy. Peter Dutton has said he'd reduce it from 260,000 to 160,000 next year. That's more than 25. 

ANGUS TAYLOR:  

Yeah, but that's over the...I'm talking about over the four (or full) years, David. So look, the position here is this. Peter's already given you, as you know, the permanent migration numbers and the overall numbers over the next couple of years, over the coming years, there'll be, you know, a term of government, there'll be 25 per cent reduction. So that's the plan. If our policies, of course, were implemented tomorrow, or if they'd been indeed implemented when Labor came to power, we'd have seen many more houses freed up and a much better balance between housing and migration. But that's the balance that we're seeking to achieve and that's where the 100,000 houses will go. 

DAVID SPEERS:  

Just to be clear though on net overseas migration, is it a 25 per cent reduction next year or not?  

ANGUS TAYLOR:  

No, I said over the full term of government. 

DAVID SPEERS:  

Over three years a 25 per cent reduction. Okay, and that was a settled Coalition position? 

ANGUS TAYLOR:  

I've already said that David. By the way, I'm delighted to get your question. I thought you'd asked me enough questions last Sunday, but it's good to see you back, good to see you back at the microphone.  

CHARLES CROUCHER:  
Thank you, Mr. Taylor. I'll ask about nuclear then. This week, David Littleproud, was asked, would there be a nuclear power plant in the Northern Territory, his response was the Northern Territory's role will be gas, gas and more gas. Since we're ruling places in and out, can you tell me will there be a nuclear power plant in New South Wales? 

ANGUS TAYLOR:  

You know, you're a bit like Phil, you're always looking for an opportunity to get us to announce another policy beyond what we already have. We've been very clear on this. We, you know, we see nuclear as part of the future of our energy system in Australia. It's because we're going to lose 90 per cent of our baseload. Gas obviously has to play an important role in the meantime. We're delighted to see that the government has shown in a rhetorical sense, some interest in gas again, but we've seen no substance behind that, we certainly haven't seen the National Gas Infrastructure Plan being reinstated. That will play a role for some time, for many years, but longer term, nuclear, which is zero emissions technology of course, we think, can play an important role in providing that baseload power. We've been very clear that the principle here is to focus on sites that are on or near current existing coal fired generators that will close and that's the 90 per cent that's closing over the years, coming through to 2035. And they're the obvious sites. And the important reason for this is that it means that you've got substantial costs that are otherwise necessary that won't be necessary. I mean, the Labor plan right now is to wrap this country in transmission lines and those of us who live in regional Australia understand the impact of that. But there's also broader impacts, like I talked about, of taking people out of construction trades, who we need to be building houses and doing other things, and putting them into transmission lines that we already have, we already have, Charles, and so this is why it's such an important policy. We've laid out the the principles around the sites and we'll obviously have more to say. There's a lot in this policy, but it's a big shift and I would say it's the most profound shift in energy policy in my lifetime, and so it's why we're working through it meticulously. And as I say, Ted and Peter and others will have more to say in the coming months.  

DAVID CROWE:  

Thanks Laura. Thanks, Mr. Taylor for your speech, David Crowe from the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age of Melbourne. Nuclear is in the news today, there's a report from CSIRO and from AEMO, the market operator, about the cost of nuclear power stations, it puts that cost at anywhere from $8.56 to maybe $16-$17 billion for the first nuclear power station. Now, in that scenario, first, what's your response to that CSIRO analysis. But I think fundamentally, do you accept that a Coalition Government, to make nuclear happen, has to offer subsidies to make that happen? How big are the subsidies that you're willing to offer as a future Treasurer, perhaps, to a nuclear industry in Australia?  

ANGUS TAYLOR:  

You know, David, let me make a couple of points about this. The first is this. Lots of people bandy numbers around nuclear and other energy sources. I mean, ultimately, the numbers that I take the most notice of are the ones that people invest in and investors focus on. But there's all sorts of assumptions that go into numbers. One of them is how much transmission you avoid by building a generator on or near an existing site. And that's a really important consideration in the economics of all this. A second one is the utilisation of the generator and of course, many people like to make assumptions that you build a base load generator but not use it as baseload. Well, that doesn't make a lot of sense. But a lot of people like to make those assumptions. So there's all sorts of assumptions to get them to those numbers. The key for me as someone who really believes that we should make sure that we have affordable, reliable power, and I don't want to commit subsidies that aren't necessary, is to make sure that it's commercially viable, and we think it can be. And Ted will have more to say about this. Peter will have more to say about this in the coming months. If it's commercially viable, it's not going to be subsidies. It's as simple as that David, that's how the commercial world works.  

DAVID CROWE: 

I can't question that assumption, because you've prefaced your sentence with the word if. If it's commercially viable, it won't need subsidies. 

ANGUS TAYLOR:  

No, I said it can be. I think it can be commercially viable. This is the point and you've got to look very hard at the way we're thinking about this, if you use existing sites, you avoid much of the cost that would otherwise be necessary and much of the cost that's been committed to by this government, in order to move electrons around. If you focus on existing sites, it makes a very substantial difference. But you've also got to focus on baseload power. I mean, this is the point, we're going to lose 90 per cent over the next 10 years. And this government does not have a feasible plan to achieve that. 90 per cent. It is baseload power that's leaving the system. And that's power that will run the vast majority of the time.  

PATRICK COMMINS:  

Thanks very much for your speech, Mr Taylor. Patrick Commins, from The Australian newspaper. You talked about the never ending bracket creep and said the best way to beat bracket creep is through lower inflation. There's another way to beat bracket creep and it's a way that's been proposed by Westpac Chief Economist, Luci Ellis, and that is to index the income tax thresholds, maybe to the middle of where the RBA targets inflation about2.5 percent. Now, isn't that a better way to address bracket creep? You know, so we don't have to keep revisiting the tax scales and go through these fights each time. Are you open to indexing the income tax thresholds to address bracket creep if you were to take government?  

ANGUS TAYLOR:  

Well, thanks for the question, Pat. Of course, the other way to do it is to flatten thresholds and that is exactly what we proposed in the stage three tax cuts that this government, that this Treasurer and Prime Minister promised over 100 times they were going to stick with, they voted for it. They went to an election supporting that. And then after the election, they decided their policy was different. And that would have actually taken out substantial bracket creep. So there's many ways to achieve this. And we were disappointed that they didn't continue with that big tax bracket. They've spent the money of course, in a different way. But the truth is, that was the whole, part of the purpose of those three stages of tax cuts, not just stage three, stage one, two and three, was to substantially reduce the impact of bracket creep. This government appears to love bracket creep. That's why I think they were so keen to get another tax bracket in. And that's exactly what they've done. And the reason why they love bracket creep, is because it fills their coffers. Inflation fills government's coffers, it drains households' coffers, it drains businesses' coffers, but it fills government's coffers and so the government has pursued the path it has. The first port of call is to put downward pressure on inflation, as I say, and that's our highest priority. But we'll have more to say about broader tax reform over the coming months.  

JASON KOUTSOUKIS:  

Mr. Taylor, thanks for your speech, Jason Kouysoukis from The Saturday Paper. In September 2022, after the permanent migration intake was increased to a record 195,000 a year, Peter Dutton said it was too little too late, adding that it's clear that the number needs to be higher. Why do you think he said that?  

ANGUS TAYLOR:  

Well, I don't think anyone understood at that time, the degree to which labour productivity in this country has, could have collapsed so badly and not come back and it hasn't. This is the point. You know, it's very simple maths. If you add, if you have a labour productivity collapse of six and a half percent, you need to have six and a half percent more labour to be able to to produce the same amount as you did before that labour productivity collapse. Now our hope is that the government will actually try to fix that. They've shown no pathway to do it. But what I've laid out in my speech is a pathway to fix that problem. And that's why we think we can balance a more sustainable level of immigration with making sure that we're dealing with those skill shortages Australians are seeing, and have seen in the past. We do think that balance is absolutely achievable. But the key to it is to get productivity back into balance. And it hasn't been under this government.  

POPPY JOHNSTON:  

Thank you for your speech, Poppy Johnston, from AAP. I was hoping you could address a critique of the super for housing policy. That people most in need of help to get onto the property ladder, don't have enough super to help them buy and so it will help wealthier homebuyers. What do you say to that? 

ANGUS TAYLOR:  

Sorry, can you repeat that last part of the question? I missed it Poppy. 

POPPY JOHNSTON:  

Oh, that people most in need of help, won't have enough super in their accounts and it will be more likely to benefit people with more in their super who are wealthier?  

ANGUS TAYLOR:  

Well look, we think Australians deserve the opportunity to use their super for every possible investment that's available and right now you've got a situation where Australians can invest in anyone's home except their own. That's the truth of what we've got at the moment in front of us in the current situation. And we think it's absolutely appropriate for those who have got super in their account, to be able to use that for their own home as well. They've still got to put it back in, it's still part of their accumulating pool of assets that they'll use in retirement. And the crucial point here is, we know that the best indicator of a good retirement is going into retirement owning your home. So we do think it's important, it's not going to be the answer for everyone, which is to your point. But it will be the answer for many. And it's why we continue to support it. And it's why we consider owning your own home as absolutely central to the Australian aspiration and the Australian dream. And we think this is part of the answer. 

KATINA CURTIS:  

Thanks. Katina Curtis from the West Australian. I just want to take you back to the net overseas migration number. I think there's a lot of scribbling and calculations going on. So on your answer before you said you're looking at a 25 per cent reduction over the term, the estimates on the term of the next government. So that would give me an average of 181,250 NOM each year. So is it a 25 per cent reduction? Or is it 160,000  as Peter Dutton has said, and would you guarantee that Australia would still have a $50 billion education export industry?  

ANGUS TAYLOR:  

Yeah, so answer to those two questions separately. To your first question, I think I've already answered it, so I'm not going to add to that. I've already given you the answer to the question. 

KATINA CURTIS:  

But what you've said is different to what your leader has said. 

ANGUS TAYLOR:  

But no, it's not, it's not different. I mean, don't confuse permanent migration and NOM, the timeframes and... 

KATINA CURTIS: 

He's said 160,000 in the NOM.  

ANGUS TAYLOR: 

But I've been very clear about where we sit on this. The second question which was...  

KATINA CURTIS: 

Do you guarantee Australia will still have a $50 billion international education sector?  

ANGUS TAYLOR: 

Yeah, of course. I mean, you know, we've still got a big international education sector. I'm not going to predict what its revenues are going to be, that's driven by all sorts of things, including how much they charge for each student that comes to a university or college or vocational education. But what I am going to say is that we'll continue to have a successful sector, but we did see in, we have seen in the couple of years since COVID, a huge increase in those numbers. It's got to be sustainable. But we want it to be sustainable at a level, which can work for those educational institutions, but also works for Australian students. I mean, if that number gets out of kilter, then the truth is the educational experience for Australians goes backwards. And we've seen some of that right now. And we need to get the balance right. And what we're suggesting is, and will again have more to say about this in the coming months, that getting that balance right, it has got to be a real focus of the government's policy and it's certainly a focus for us. 

BEN WESTCOTT:  

Thank you so much for your speech Shadow Treasurer. I really appreciate it. I just want to take you to the cuts that, and the sort of, the government in your first year of office in two years time if you win the election, that's a $40 billion deficit or something like that. Now, so far, you've spoken about a number of cuts you want to make to what Labor's promised at this election. Most of them are in the millions, though, the exception is the billions in corporate welfare. Now, that's only $300 million in that year, most of that's backloaded to the nevernever. And then there's the government, the public servant spots as well, which is about $6 billion or something like that. So that leaves about $34 billion or something like that. What sort of cuts are you thinking about making there? How are you going to bring that down?  

ANGUS TAYLOR:  

Well, I think I've laid out a very clear picture for the overall goal, which is that you've got to make sure your spending grows faster - the growth grows faster than your spending. Your economic growth is faster than your spending growth. And it's just, it's such a common sense rule, because you know then you're always improving your budget position, and you're able to give money back in lower taxes over time. So it's, it's pretty simple. You're missing some significant numbers in all of that, by the way, $45 billion that we've opposed through the Parliament, $18 billion of interest payments attached to that. And that's very significant and includes much of the powerline expenditure that I think is unnecessary if you get your energy policy right. And you know, the important point here is this is restraint. This is just sensible restraint. It's not some kind of scorched earth policy, it doesn't need to be. We saw that when we were last in government. If you have sensible restraint, it means that you can do things like pass through tax cuts, stages one, two, and three. That was our focus in government and we'll have a very similar focus when in government again. 

PAUL KARP:  

Thanks very much. The GenCost Report shows large scale nuclear would cost $141 a megawatt hour compared with $80 to $130 for solar and wind, and that includes the cost of firming renewables and the cost of transmission. So just picking up on David Crowe's question, what exactly are you doing differently to the CSIRO to bridge that gap, and will the coalition possibly be reviving the National Energy Guarantee so that the the reliability of nuclear is priced in? 

ANGUS TAYLOR: 

Well, can I make a couple of points about that. The reliability piece of the National Energy Guarantee was actually implemented. I was the minister when we did it. And I realised that we had to go further. And we had to establish a capacity mechanism, which this government has pursued but said it should be renewables only. Now, we're the only country in the world that I'm aware of that's done that. A renewables only strategy, I think, doesn't work for dispatchable firm power, you're not going to get there. And it's why we've been very clear that you've got to have enough dispatchability in your system. That's why you've got to have, alongside the renewables, which will continue to see investment, particularly household solar, you've got to have investment in gas, you've got to have a longer term baseload source. In terms of your numbers, look, as I said, I think I answered that question earlier. A lot of people bandy around a lot of numbers, there's a lot of assumptions that go into those numbers, of course, some of which we can agree with. Some, which we may not. The important point here is that I'm firmly convinced that nuclear can generate a return because this system needs baseload power. And you can get a reasonable return from having good, clean, zero emission, baseload power. And I think the economics, as you'll see, in the coming months, the economics can work. And at an affordable price, by the way. 

PAUL KARP: 

Do you accept that the renewables includes firming and transmission, the GenCost Report includes firming and transmission for renewables, and it's still cheaper. 

ANGUS TAYLOR: 

Well, there's lots of other assumptions in the GenCost as well. So we can sit and get technical about this now, and I'm not going to do that. But there's lots of other assumptions in a GenCost Report that you know, we can sit and argue all day. What I am convinced of is that this can be a source of baseload power, high utilisation power in our system, which is zero emissions, which can be affordable, and which can deliver the necessary return. 

LAURA TINGLE:  

We're getting close to the end of our broadcast time, but are you happy to take a few more questions? 

ANGUS TAYLOR:  

Yeah sure. 

PABLO VINALES:  

Thank you. Pablo Vinales from SBS. Mr. Taylor nurses and aged care workers make up some of the biggest cohorts of skilled migrants coming to Australia. So under your proposal to cut migration, is it not the case that you would have to reduce the intake of these workers in order to allow construction workers to come in and build the houses that Australia needs?  

ANGUS TAYLOR:  

Yeah, I'm not going to get into the allocation of those visas across different groups today. That's not, now's not the appropriate time. What I would say is it's still a very significant number and so it can deal with the needs that we have. The broader point I'd make, though more, you know, this doesn't apply to any particular occupations, it applies across the board, is if you get labour productivity back on track, if you increase participation rights, like getting pensioners and veterans, giving them more of an incentive into the workforce, you can actually alleviate those pressures in other ways. And we think it is absolutely feasible to alleviate those pressures in a whole range of different ways, but it does mean doing something this government is not doing which is making sure that our workplaces are competitive, productive, good for employees, as well as employers. And that hasn't been the focus of the government. 

JACK QUAIL:  

Thank you very much, Mr. Taylor for your address, Jack Quail from the News Corp wire. You spoke in your address about unwinding the worst of Labor's workplace laws, beyond the right to disconnect and the changes to the definition of casual employment, I mean, what are the worst of, what constitutes the worst of Labor's workplace laws. Are they multi employer bargaining, the clamp down on labour hire we saw earlier this year, changes to the gig economy. What do you see is the worst?  

ANGUS TAYLOR: 

 Another cheeky attempt to get me to announce more policies than we've already announced over the last little while but I mean, the casual one, which I outlined in my speech, and Peter outlined as well, last Thursday night, I think, is one that we believe gets the balance wrong between the flexibility so many people are looking for in the workplace. Flexibility is way more valued than it was in the past. What the reasons are for that may be COVID, there's other drivers, more families where both are working, so they want more flexibility to be able to deal with that. And when, that's why we think what Labor's done in the area of casuals is taking us backwards and is not helping to get what we really want, which is employees being able to be paid more, getting more purchasing power out of their pay packets, employers having productive competitive workplaces so that they can succeed as businesses, and that will continue to be our focus. Michaelia Cash, it's good to see her here over from WA, and Michaelia of course, will talk more about these issues in the coming months, but I think the casuals point is one that is enormously important and like many of Labor's steps, are a backward step in terms of getting the prosperity, rising real wages that we all want to see.  

FINN McHUGH:  

Mr Taylor, Finn McHugh from Capital Brief. In March, Peter Dutton said that we could expect more details on the nuclear policy very shortly. Obviously, the budget reply was an obvious point to put a bit more meat on the bone. I get, you know, you don't want to announce any policy today. But given how significant it is, what kind of timeframe are we looking at for a fully costed plan that Australians can vote on?  

ANGUS TAYLOR:  

Well, can I just say, as I said, a little earlier, this is one of the most profound changes of direction in energy policy in this country, certainly, in my lifetime, hugely important. It is about making sure we've got an affordable, reliable, sustainable energy grid for decades to come and making sure we've got a pathway that's achievable, not a pathway that's going to take us in the wrong direction and it's why we're announcing it in a staged way. We've laid out many of the principles and Ted O'Brien will continue to do that. I'm not going to give you the date of all our announcements between now and the next election. But can I assure you of one thing, we will announce our policies before the election not afterwards. And we were unbelievably disappointed to see this Labor Government make a series of announcements about what its policies were before the election and then change their mind afterwards. Our focus is on consistent policies before and after the election. 

LAURA TINGLE:  

Unlike 2014. 

MELISSA COADE:  

Mr. Taylor, Melissa Coade from The Mandarin. Apologies if this question sounds contrarian, but I think it's an important question to put to you. You mentioned before the importance of government spending within its means when it comes to resourcing Australian Public Service and when Labor approached the last election, one of its election mandates was making the APS fit for purpose. Given the budget references some really essential things like clearing backlog for Veteran Affairs compensation and also Services Australia backlog of like 500,000 claims, what is the Coalition's view on adequately resourcing the APS, if not resourcing it properly might lead to really consequential issues that come up in major Royal Commissions further down the track, costing the government and society even more? 

ANGUS TAYLOR:  

Yeah, I mean, there's areas where it's clear that backlogs have needed to be cleared. We were very conscious of that in government on veterans, in particular, where we upped that resourcing in the final budget, because we did feel that needed to be cleared and that was an important initiative. We also think that it's more important that we put Canberra based or Canberra public servants and bureaucrats more generally focused on national security concerns. And Peter laid that out in his speech defence, of course. So he's one of those areas. And you know, these, this is all about where your priorities are, we do think that it is important to have the right resourcing for Veterans in particular, that's one we're very conscious of.  

MELISSA COADE: 

So it's not the case, the Coalition is anti fit for purpose public service?  

ANGUS TAYLOR:  

No, of course not. I mean, I've worked with the public service for many, many years as a Minister, and I know there's enormous capability within the public service. But like every part of Australia, every household, every business, we've got to live within our means. We've got to achieve the best possible outcomes with the resources we have. And that's important for the public sector as it is for the private sector and households. And this is just, this is just sensible stuff. It's how most Australians have to live their lives and it shouldn't be any different for camera based public servants as it is for anyone else.  

ANDREW PROBYN: 

Mr. Taylor, Andrew Probyn, Nine News. At risk of really annoying you, would you spell out exactly what your policy is on net overseas migration? Because there seems to be quite a bit of confusion, driven by the fact that your numbers don't seem to stack up with Peter Dutton?  

ANGUS TAYLOR:  

Well, I don't agree with that. And I've laid them out and put them out again. So I've already answered that question. I'm not going to answer it again. And I've been very clear about it. And I'll leave it to you to make the commentary. But you know, our position is clear. At the end of the day, we think we can free up 100,000 homes for Australians. And it's not very hard to work out the calculations on the NOM that have got to support that. So I'll leave you guys to the commentary. But the crucial point is this. We want to see Australians being able to get back into a home again, when that's their aspiration. And we see a whole generation of younger Australians who are losing that aspiration, they can't see a pathway to own a home. And one of the important levers is not the only one. But one of the important levers to achieve that is to make sure we have an immigration rate and net overseas migration rate, to use the technical jargon, that is consistent with what our housing sector can build. And that's what this policy is all about. And that's how the 100,000 has come about. We would strongly encourage the government to implement the policies that we've outlined, tomorrow, and that number can be substantially higher. So that's, that's where it sits, Probs. And I think it's pretty straight forward. You free up houses because your net overseas migration is lower and I've laid that out.  

LAURA TINGLE:  

Finally [inaudible] if you wouldn't mind. Now, you're saying you'll also stop foreign investors from buying established housing. There were only 1339 established dwellings with the last data we've got available for, bought by foreign investors. On that basis, why wouldn't you stop domestic investors buying established homes given that they bought 172,000 established dwellings in that same year? Why not scrap negative gearing and reduce the capital gains tax for investors in established dwellings?  

ANGUS TAYLOR:  

Well, you know, I realise that the Labor Party and the union movement have a vision of housing ownership and rental in this country where the unions own the housing stock, not small Australian businesses, plumbers and chippies and electricians who of course, are now in a position where they can buy a block or buy a home and use their skills to add value to it and that's how our system works, and then they rent that out. Ultimately, they might live in it as well, but they rent that out. And we think that's a good model. We don't think it's the right thing to change. And foreign investment is a very different thing. I mean, those chippies and electricians and plumbers already live in this country. And that is a very big difference between those two things. But we don't share Labor's vision of big union owned housing and renting that housing out to Australians who want to rent. We just don't think that is the pathway forward, but that's the pathway we know Labor wants to pursue with those policies.  

LAURA TINGLE: 

Well, you've been very generous with your time today. Thank you. And please thank Angus Taylor for speaking.