Patricia Karvelas:
I want to bring in Assistant Treasurer Daniel Mulino. Welcome to the program.
Daniel Mulino:
Thanks for having me on, PK.
Karvelas:
We’ll start with the ideas that are going to be in the Budget in Reply that we know about, that the Opposition’s been talking about. Do you see any merit in this proposal to cut welfare and NDIS services, other services to non‑citizens, that you have to be a citizen to be entitled to them?
Mulino:
Well, look, PK, can I just say, the fact that One Nation is saying that Angus is copying them says it all to me. I think this is a really divisive and dangerous policy. It’s gone beyond dog whistling, frankly. It’s now just straight‑out demonising a significant group in our community who contributes. Can I just say on this one that I was born overseas. I came to Australia when I was one, with my dad, who was born overseas. He spent a period of time as a permanent resident before we both got citizenship. He spent that time working multiple jobs, paying taxes, completing his high school equivalent at night, then he studied nursing, then he worked as a nurse and contributed to our society.
So, my point is that the people who are permanent migrants contribute massively to our society, all through my electorate, we already have waiting periods, quite substantial waiting periods for people to get benefits. 10 years for the age pension and DSP, multiple years for other benefits. There’s a system that already has proportionality and balance. I think this is nothing than really divisive and poor politics.
Karvelas:
Tim Wilson is going to be on a little later. I’ve already spoken to him, though, and his argument is that, in fact, it’s the direction countries around the world are moving in. It’s about making your system more robust. There is a pathway to citizenship, of course, if you’re here permanently, and so in some ways it might accelerate that, and then people are full citizens before they can access services. What’s wrong with that argument?
Mulino:
So, let’s be frank. This is not about policy robustness. Look, we are the benchmark when it comes to being a successful, diverse, multicultural society. We’re the country that people look to around the world. This is really about sending political signals. It’s about Angus Taylor chasing Pauline Hanson to the right. I think it’s really, really concerning. And let’s think about this in practice. Is Angus Taylor now saying that he wants bulk billing practises, which we’ve supported, by the way. He wants bulk billing practices to check people’s passport to see if they’re a citizen?
Karvelas:
Let’s just interrupt there, because it excludes education and health, they’ve said, so that you know these core services. So, if you’ve got a child, you can send them to school. If you need to access the doctor, you can. So, it’s about other services, including the NDIS.
Mulino:
Well, so yeah, okay, so he’s going to throw, he’s saying 7 per cent of people off the NDIS immediately. He’s saying he’s going to throw people off support payments, carers support, JobSeeker. He’s going to throw people off the age pension. So, where do these people get supports? Of course, I understand the importance of citizenship. As I said, I came to this country, I became a citizen, I’m very proud of that. There’s nothing I find myself more inspired by than going to citizenship ceremonies. But this is about punishment, about demonisation, about division. This is not some kind of pro‑citizenship policy. It’s about pure politics, about the Liberal Party trying to defend itself.
Karvelas:
Is it just about pure politics alone? Because on the figures they’re going to provide it will save the taxpayer. That might be appealing to people at a time when, of course, the budget is under pressure.
Mulino:
But let’s think about this. If you’re throwing people off benefits, where are they going to get their supports? Are they expecting charities, churches –
Karvelas:
– Their argument is that they should pay for it themselves. That’s the argument.
Mulino:
Well, look, we have a social safety net which is there for people who are vulnerable, for people who need support. I really think this is not thought through. I think when it gets investigated, I think they’re going to find it very hard to justify this and explain it. I think when I think about all the people in my community who are permanent residents, who rely on these kinds of supports, to throw them all off immediately would just not be practicable, it would not be humane, it would not reflect the kind of society that we want.
Karvelas:
So, you rule out Labor’s not looking at this?
Mulino:
No, we are not looking at this.
Karvelas:
This is just, this is a polarized, you’re against this proposal; they’re for it. This is going to be quite a debate then?
Mulino:
Yeah, look, we support permanent residents in this country, we support those who need help, and we support those who want to move to citizenship. This has been a long‑standing bipartisan policy to support multiculturalism and diversity in this country. I think this speech tonight, we’ll see the exact speech. I don’t want to prejudge it, but I’ve seen enough to think that there’s going to be enough in this speech to undermine the kind of broad‑based support for multicultural –
Karvelas:
– Well, the other one is linking the number of migrants that come into housing construction. Now, that seems just on face value kind of logical, doesn’t it? You bring the number of people where you have the number of dwellings to actually meet that need. Isn’t that just a basic economic structure?
Mulino:
Look, I think it’s simplistic in the sense that there isn’t a simple one‑for‑one mechanical link between migration and housing prices, for example. There have been any number of studies which show that there are a number of things affecting the housing market. What I would say is that we are approaching this from a holistic perspective. We have seen net overseas migration drop 45 per cent in our time in government. It was very high and rising.
Karvelas:
But it’s going to overshoot your forecasts according to the Budget. So, it’s still a problem. It’s. It’s higher than you’d like it to be.
Mulino:
It is materially below where it was, 45 per cent lower.
Karvelas:
Higher than we thought.
Mulino:
And coming down. At the same time, we’re significantly boosting housing supply. We’ve had $47 billion of programs, and we have an additional 65,000 in supply in this Budget. So, look, we are addressing this from both sides in ways that are realistic and sustainable and are delivering results. I think this mechanistic link, again, it’s got more politics to it than policy, frankly.
Karvelas:
Okay, just on one other proposal, which will be announced, we understand, and that’s the indexation of tax scales. Now that is very appealing to people. You know, you’re an economist. If you talk to economists, they think it’s a great idea rather than a political fix every time to deliver bracket creep back based on how governments feel. governments get a lot in their coffers because of bracket creep. Why not index the tax scales? Yes, it’s expensive, but it is also people’s money, isn’t it? You want to return it and have it actually moving with inflation.
Mulino:
So, what I would say on income tax more broadly, just to start with, is that we have delivered significant income tax cuts. We’ve delivered 5 cuts in different ways so far, including what’s in this Budget. And for somebody on the average wage, they will benefit by up to $2,800 a year. Now, when it comes to moving forward, the Treasurer and the PM have both indicated that over the medium term, they are open to delivering more income tax relief as it is responsibly possible. But what we would say is that, let’s look at this speech tonight. If he is going to go down that path, I want to see it fully costed and fully justified.
Karvelas:
And if it is? I mean, it’s a good idea.
Mulino:
Well, look, I’ll look at his costings and look at what he’s using to pay for it, what he’s cutting.
Karvelas:
You are an expert in this area, so I have to sort of pick your brain. You do know that economists think it’s a really good idea to index the tax scales?
Mulino:
Well, some do, but look, what I would say is there’s a range of views on this, and the approach that we’ve taken is that we will return benefits to income taxpayers where it’s economically responsible to do so. And I think that’s the best approach. The other thing I would say is this Budget has a once‑in‑a‑multi‑decade approach to shifting the tax scales, aligning the tax scales better between those who earn income from capital, more in favour of those who earn income from labour. So, you know, our reforms are very much addressed at helping people keep more of what they earn.
Karvelas:
The ACTU will seek a sector 6 per cent pay rise for nearly 3 million workers in that annual wage review. They say the forecasts are going up. Is that fair?
Mulino:
So, what we have said is that we do support a wage rise, and we’ve also said that we support an economically sustainable real wage increase.
Karvelas:
And is that economically sustainable?
Mulino:
So we haven’t put a number on it. But, you know, unlike the Opposition, who basically never support wage rises, we have said that we do support a wage rise for people at the moment where they’re doing it tough.
Karvelas:
But does that seem too high, even though actually inflation’s projected to go up?
Mulino:
So, as is our practice, we don’t put a particular number on it, but we have said that we support a sustainable real wage increase.
Karvelas:
You don’t think the ACTU’s 6 per cent is too high?
Mulino:
Well, like the minister, I won’t put a number on it particularly.
Karvelas:
Okay, but you’re not, you don’t. You won’t say that theirs is too high?
Mulino:
No, no. So, I won’t comment on any particular number, but I think what we’ve really said is that as the government, we’ve made a submission and we always make submissions to these Fair Work Commission inquiries, and we’ve said that we feel a sustainable real wage increase is the right approach.
Karvelas:
Just finally, the recruitment of Tammy Tyrrell. Did you really need an extra senator? I mean, people should get elected and be honest about the platform they’re running on. We didn’t know she was going to be a Labor Senator. Is that, is that really breaching faith with the electorate?
Mulino:
Yeah. Well, I think what I saw from Tammy this morning was that she said she was elected to represent Tasmanians, that she had a set of values which she put forward when she was elected, and that she has felt increasingly that she’s going to be best placed to represent her values as part of the Labor team, that she was increasingly finding herself supporting our positions. And she also is going to go to the Tasmanian people and say to them, I can represent you better from within the government and get better outcomes. So, she’ll, I think, make that case to them, and I think, you know, she’s going to be very welcomed into our caucus.
Karvelas:
Finally, quick sense check from you. The Treasurer has told us he acknowledges that the broken promise is controversial on the property taxes. Are you getting only positive feedback, or are you also getting a bit of a backlash to your electorate officers?
Mulino:
Well, look, I must say this week I’ve spent most of my time talking to stakeholders up here, and I’ve had really in‑depth discussions, and I think. I think not everybody’s agreed with every element, but by in large, people are glad we’re taking action.
Karvelas:
Do you think it’s been received well in the electorate?
Mulino:
Well, I’ll go back to the electorate tomorrow, and I think I’ll get a lot of feedback there. I’m at a couple of events in the community, so next time we talk, I’ll be able to give you more direct feedback.
Karvelas:
Ok, good. I am really interested in how it goes down. I think the jury’s out, to be honest. Some people will like it, some people won’t. It’ll be interesting. Thank you so much for joining us.
Mulino:
Thanks, PK.