CANBERRA, ACT, March 27 -- The Treasurer of Australia issued the following transcript:
Note
Subjects: energy transition and fuel supply, May Budget, inflation and economic growth, productivity reform, Hawke and Keating governments, budget deficit, AI, capital gains tax discount
Alan Kohler:
G'day Treasurer, and welcome to our first That's Business podcast.
Jim Chalmers:
I'm really looking forward to it Alan, thanks for the invitation.
Kohler:
Well Treasurer, we've had a bit of a wake up call on energy, haven't we? I mean, you've been talking about Australia becoming an energy superpower, but in fact, as soon as there's trouble, we're scrambling. You're releasing diesel reserves, you're having to let higher sulphur imports in just to keep going. I mean, isn't the truth that we can't become even self‑sufficient, let alone a superpower in energy, unless you do a domestic reservation policy?
Chalmers:
Well, you've jumped right to the most important issue obviously Alan, which is fuel security. We spend really most of our day in different discussions planning for a whole range of contingencies and scenarios. What we're really dealing with here is the fifth big economic shock in less than 2 decades. And this one has the potential to very severely disrupt supply chains for energy, for fuel, and not just that, fertiliser and cascading through our economy. So, a very serious threat to our economy.
Now when it comes to the fuel security questions, I think what this is reminding us is that the energy transformation is a national security issue. For people who believe as we do in the energy transformation, there are good economic reasons to do that. Cleaner and cheaper energy is good for our economy, but it's also good for our national security to have more diverse sources of fuel. When the President of the European Commission was in town the other day she made this point really quite starkly, which is the energy transformation is a national security issue. Of course, we spend a lot of time making sure that there's more diesel in the system - petrol, diesel and jet fuel - to make sure that it's getting to where it needs to go, but the longer term energy transformation is really important in this regard as well. It will help us when we have shocks like these.
Kohler:
Yeah, but you're not really doing enough on energy transformation, it seems to me. I mean, what you're not doing is having a carbon price, which is what would speed it up. I mean, don't you really have to put your foot down? Isn't this a wake up call that you need to put your foot down on that transformation?
Chalmers:
Well, I understand that there are different views about how fast we're moving and how ambitious we are on this, but I think our agenda on cleaner and cheaper energy and what that means for climate change is an ambitious agenda. The targets we released last year, all of the work that we're doing when it comes to getting our emissions down, is plenty ambitious.
This progress is hard fought and hard won. There's a lot of people who would like us to do much less on energy and climate change. There are people who would like us to do much more. But this government's really ambitious about it. The work of Chris Bowen, supported by myself and others, is really important all of the time, but I think especially important when we get reminded by oil shocks like the one that we're going through right now.
Kohler:
Yeah, but are you doing anything differently as a result of this oil shock? Are you changing things at all, or are you just going along as you were?
Chalmers:
Well, I think the point I'm trying to make to you Alan is it makes our agenda more important, our existing agenda on the energy transformation, and -
Kohler:
So, you're not changing the agenda at all?
Chalmers:
Well, we are in the sense that we're taking some decisive immediate action to try and alleviate some of these pressures. But our bigger longer‑term agenda is the right one. It's an agenda that says we have to get our emissions down. We need cleaner and cheaper, renewable, reliable energy in the system, whether it's the Capacity Investment Scheme, the Safeguard Mechanism. We've got a number of levers and we're using them, I think, in a pretty ambitious way.
What it reminds us as well, coming back to this near‑term cyclical issue versus the longer‑term structural issues, is we're doing this work in the here and now. Releasing more fuel, working with the regulators and industry to make sure it's getting where it's needed most, working with our international partners to make sure that we can secure supply. We're doing that against the backdrop of these big structural issues in our economy. Energy is an important one but not the only one. The technological revolution, the aging of our population, the fragmenting of the geopolitical scene. All of this is happening more or less at once, and what it reminds us is that the agenda that we have in energy, technology, our engagement in the world is more important, not less, because of what we're seeing now.
Kohler:
Okay, well just turning to the Budget. You've said that you can't do the Budget, you can't finalise the Budget until quite late in the piece this time, because of the uncertainty, which is obviously fair enough. I presume that means the sort of the basic issue is, will the Strait of Hormuz still be closed when you do the Budget, right? I mean, and if it is closed in a month's time, then the price of oil is going to be $140, $150. So, can you give us a broad sort of sense of what difference that makes to the Budget? I mean, what will you do, what will the Budget look like if the Strait of Hormuz are still closed in a month's time?
Chalmers:
This is absolutely the key consideration. It's the, frankly, it's the thing that keeps me awake at night thinking about this, putting together the government's fifth budget with Katy Gallaher and the other colleagues. And we're running a lot of scenarios, we're doing a lot of modelling. Two things matter most to that modelling. The point that you make about the strait really goes to both of them, which is this: the first thing that matters is when the hot part of the hostilities end, which could be any day, frankly, we don't quite know when those hostilities will end. But then beyond that, how long it takes to get the show back on the road in a global economy. Thinking about lasting damage to oil and gas infrastructure, for example, potentially lasting damage to supply chains, how long the supply shock and the price shock hangs around, particularly in energy but also fertiliser, transport costs, the cost of PVC and housing and construction. There are a whole range of scenarios and contingencies and modelling that we are doing, and it goes to that key question of when will the strait reopen. How long will it take given there's been some sea mining activity in the strait as well? So those 2 sets of considerations are key to all of our scenarios that we're working out right now.
Now, at some point, we're going to have to put the pencils down on the forecast. It's always hard to forecast the economy, but especially in particularly volatile and uncertain times that we confront right now. So, as you rightly said at the start of your question, ordinarily we'd take the big decisions in April anyway, so we're not necessarily behind schedule. But we'll always need to maintain in this situation a little bit of flexibility because the situation is evolving so rapidly. If you think about just the other day, I think the global oil price dropped 11percent or something in an hour or 2 on comments that President Trump had made about engaging with the Iranians. The other thing that that tells us is when you look at the market reaction to some of these sorts of developments from a purely economic and market point of view, the end of the war can't come soon enough. But that won't necessarily be the end of the pressure on supply chains and the pressures on all of our economies. It depends very heavily on how quickly the global economy recovers after that.
Kohler:
I'm wondering if you can give us a sense of what the Budget will actually do. I mean, clearly, if the Strait of Hormuz is still closed in a month and the price of oil is whatever it might be, then we're looking at stagflation, right? We're looking at a big jump in inflation and probably a decline in activity. So what should, if that's the case, what do you think the government's priority should be? Should it be to get growth up to stimulate the economy or should it be to do the opposite and help the Reserve Bank bring inflation down? I mean, what's going on in Treasury and your own mind?
Chalmers:
Well, again, you've come at the key balance that we're trying to strike here. And whether the barrel price of oil hangs around at $100, $120, $150 a barrel or even higher will effectively determine just how much that weighs on growth and how much it pushes up inflation. We've tried to be really upfront with people and say we had an inflation challenge in our economy before, but the war will make things harder and potentially much harder.
And so, as we put the Budget together and we consider the steps that we were already planning in the Budget and working up in the Budget to lift the speed limit on the economy, make it more productive, deal with inflation, try and make us more resilient in the face of these international shocks which are coming more and more frequently. To also have a range of contingencies in the event that the economic downturn, the slowing of growth, is more substantial than we currently anticipate. Now that's just diligence, I think anyone in the position that I'm in as Treasurer and thinking about those 5 big shocks over the course of the last couple of decades, every treasurer has a whole series of contingencies. And so, if it turns out that the risks to growth are more substantial, obviously that would warrant a shift in our strategy. We're also very focused on inflation as you rightly point out. So as the balance of risks change, so do our considerations and our deliberations for the Budget, of course they do.
Kohler:
And in fact, it's looking a bit stagflationish at the moment. We've got consumer sentiment the other day came out to be the lowest in history since they started doing it 53years ago. And at the same time, inflation came out and it was down a little bit, but you said that it's still too high. So we've got inflation too high, consumer sentiment absolutely tanking. So that's even right now.
Chalmers:
Yeah, I don't dispute your point about consumer confidence being very low, I think unsurprisingly so given the pressures that people are under. And you're quite right that I've said that there's an inflation challenge already and the war would make it worse, even though inflation went down a little bit, ticked down a tiny bit in the numbers that we got earlier this week.
But let's not forget a couple of other things. Your point about stagflation, I see it written from time to time. I mean, Alan, we've got unemployment at 4.3percent. In the course of the last few years of this government, we've had the lowest average unemployment of any government in 50years. That's not consistent with that description. When it comes to growth, we finished the year with faster economic growth than any major advanced economy. So you've got to look right across the economy. I do understand confidence has taken a hit, I don't dispute that. I do understand that inflation was too high already and it will now be higher for longer because of the war. But don't forget, we go into this with some very, very substantial advantages. Labour force participation has been excellent. Unemployment has been really low. Growth got up to 2.6percent, which in the context of the last few years is a pretty handy foundation.
We are well placed, we are well prepared, but we will be buffeted by what's happening around the world. But we go into it from a position of relative strength compared to a lot of our peers.
Kohler:
Just before we get off the war, do you have an opinion about whether it was a good idea? Do you think they should have attacked Iran as they did?
Chalmers:
I think as my colleague said on the night that the hostilities began, there are important strategic reasons why the Americans did what they did. Our job has been to support the UAE and other friends in the region to look after the 115,000 Australians who are in the area, including, a bit under a quarter of those in the UAE itself. So, we've made our position on this conflict clear.
From a purely, as I said before, a purely markets point of view, purely economic point of view - the part of the shop that I'm responsible for - whatever the reasons for going in, obviously the end of the hot part of the conflict can't come soon enough, because we've got to repair these supply chains. The longer it drags out, the more lasting damage there is done to economies like ours. And as a government which is very focused on the people‑facing part of the economy - unemployment, inflation, all of these indicators which impact the heaviest on real people and real communities right around Australia - then obviously we're very concerned about how long this is dragging out and the economic consequences of that. Plus, the consequences of however long it takes us to get the show back on the road.
Kohler:
On the Budget, you said that the Budget will contain 3ambitious reform packages: a savings package, a productivity and investment package, and a tax package. So what does all that mean? I mean, does it mean spending cuts for savings, tax cuts for business investment, and tax increases for everyone else? What does it all mean? And also what's the bottom line for the Budget? I mean, are you trying to reduce the deficit or not?
Chalmers:
Well, I think as all of the rest of the discussion we've had today, Alan, makes clear that the kind of final landing point, the underlying cash balance is obviously a long way from being determined. But from our point of view, we're continuing to work on those 3 interrelated packages. There will be savings in the Budget. How much in savings is still to be determined, but there will be savings. That has been savings in all 7 of the updates that Katy and I have handed down so far, and there'll be savings in the eighth. It's been one of the reasons why we've been able to get the budget position in a substantially better place than where it was 3 and a half, 4years ago. There will be more savings. There will be tax reform. And again, we haven't taken the key decisions on that. We wouldn't in normal times have taken those decisions yet, but because of this extra layer of uncertainty, as you rightly pointed out before, there's a bit more flexibility later in the process to land some of those.
Now the productivity package is absolutely important in any scenario because it's about making sure that we can lift the speed limit on the economy. One of the things that we observed in our economy at the end of last year, which you would have observed too, Alan, is when the private sector came roaring back, business investment, dwelling investment, when it all came roaring back towards the end of last year, we learned that our economy couldn't get much above 2percent annual growth without it bringing back some of these unwelcome inflationary pressures. And so the productivity package is about lifting the speed limit on the economy. It's about making it easier and faster to build things - a real passion of yours I know in housing, Alan, given your thinking and writing on this. Making us a more attractive investment destination in a time where everyone around the world is reconsidering their capital allocation. And also trying to get business compliance costs down. Now all 3 of those objectives are important in normal times, but also in crisis times. It's a no‑regret set of issues that we're working up for the Budget and that's why we continue to develop them between now and the 12th of May.
Kohler:
Yeah, so Keating and Hawke increased productivity from an average of 1.2percent in the 80s to, I think they doubled it, in fact, in the 90s. But they did that as a result of a revolution. I mean, the changes that were brought about by Keating, as you well know, were enormous. We're not talking, you know, it sounds to me like you're doing a bit of fiddling here and there. But what you're not proposing is productivity revolution, it seems to me. Is that a reasonable observation?
Chalmers:
I don't think it's reasonable to say we're fiddling or tweaking. One of the things I'm proudest of really since the election, in fact since the day after the election talking to your ABC colleague David Speers with both of us with bleary eyes on the Insiders program the day after the election was to make productivity front and centre. Not just in the work that I do, but the work that the government does more broadly. We've already done a heap of work out of the Reform Roundtable, abolishing nuisance tariffs and reforming the EPBC Act. A whole bunch of stuff that I think ordinarily people would consider to be substantial changes.
Now, I obviously understand that the Hawke-Keating period was the gold standard in this regard, but you can't do those things twice, that Paul and Bob did so well. There are new frontiers now. The energy transformation, the technological revolution, how we respond to ageing, how we respond to geopolitical fragmentation, how we change and broaden and deepen our industrial base, how we attract more investment. These are the equivalents in the 2020s, this defining decade, in the same way that the 80s became a defining decade. So, Paul used to describe the third economy that he built. Every 40years or so Australia builds itself a new economy since federation. Between federation and World War II, a colonial economy, largely agricultural. Between the end of the Second World War and the beginning of the 1980s, still agricultural but more and more industrial and protected. Then the economy that Paul and Bob built, opened up to the world, greater reliance on services. The equivalent for us is to build an economy which is powered by cleaner and cheaper energy and which makes people beneficiaries, not victims, of the technological revolution. That's our agenda, that's our frontier and it's different to what Paul and Bob had but it builds on it. So, I don't accept the characterisation of our efforts. I do know that we've got more to do and we will build on that stunningly successful work of our predecessors.
Now, on the productivity data, again acknowledging there's heaps more to do here and it's nowhere near good enough for what we need to lift living standards for people and deliver on our intergenerational responsibilities. But productivity last year was 1percent. That's higher than the 20‑year average and not bad in the context of the last couple of decades. Market sector productivity has gone up 5 quarters in a row now and it's one and a halfpercent in the most recent data. So that's some green shoots, hopefully, when it comes to productivity. But much more work to do and it won't be tweaking or fiddling or however you describe that, Alan, and also in that column that you wrote a few months ago, which obviously I read and reread. We know that there's more work to do, but we're making some progress I believe.
Kohler:
Well, I'm not the only one saying this. I mean, just about every economist I speak to says that you're not doing enough. And in fact -
Chalmers:
No, I understand that, but I care more when you say it, Alan.
Kohler:
Oh, well that's very nice. But what people say is that you would be much more reformist if you could be, but Cabinet and the Prime Minister hold you back. And it's not just personalities, it's really the tension between politics and economics. I suppose the question is, what have you - because you studied Paul Keating, and obviously you talk to him all the time, as do I - but what do you learn from Paul about how to balance the tension between politics and economics?
Chalmers:
Well, this is really the key thing that we talk about. I had a couple of hours with him not that long ago, maybe 2 or 3weeks ago talking about this exactly. But I think the characterisation of my colleagues is a bit unfair. I feel like one of the things I'm very fortunate to have is to be surrounded by ambitious colleagues. And the Prime Minister certainly has been a very, very willing partner when it comes to some of the work that we're doing on tax and productivity and making the budget more sustainable as well. So I do read that from time to time and I don't think it really quite captures our relationship. I think I'm really fortunate to have a Prime Minister who works collegiately on some of these issues and the level of ambition is broadly shared.
Now, I think inevitably, when you're the Treasurer - it probably doesn't just describe me, it certainly describes Paul - there is an element of impatience in treasurers which, to be fair, I probably share. You always want to do as much as you can while you're in these roles, recognising that this is a very time‑limited opportunity, and so you want to do as much good as you can. The onus is on treasurers to explain why change is necessary, why reform is necessary, and that's an important part of the job that I embrace. But the colleagues are in the cart for the sorts of reforms that we're contemplating for May.
Kohler:
Just before we get off the budget. I mean, the MYEFO in December showed what looked to be a structural deficit. It's a deficit for 10years. It finally goes back into balance according to the Treasury forecasts in 10years' time. So do you accept that it's a structural deficit? And what responsibility do you have, do you think, to remove it more quickly than 10years?
Chalmers:
Well, first of all, I think it's possible to acknowledge the structural pressures on the Budget, the structural position of the Budget, and that there's much, much more work to do to make the Budget more sustainable. It's possible to acknowledge that and also recognise that we've come a long way in the last few years. I mean, we've actually seen the biggest nominal improvement in the budget in the history of the country in the last few years: $233billion stronger, debt is down $176billion, we found $114billion worth of savings. I could give you a whole bunch of different ways that shows that the budget is in substantially better nick than in the 2022 pre‑election outlook.
Kohler:
Yeah, but there's still a big deficit.
Chalmers:
And I'm acknowledging that there's more work to do. You referenced the mid‑year update in December, that had another $20billion in savings. The underlying cash position in every year improved. So, even in that mid‑year update, which was a relatively self‑contained one, relatively modest one, given a lot of the action was in the budget in March last year. Even in that mid‑year update we improved the budget position. So we're chipping away. I think we are making good progress. We can acknowledge that progress at the same time as we acknowledge we've got more work to do.
Kohler:
I think the size of the deficit is roughly the same as the cost of the NDIS. I mean, how much of a problem is the NDIS? And how badly designed do you think it was in the beginning?
Chalmers:
Well, I don't like second guessing the decisions taken a while ago when it comes to the NDIS. Our highest priority, obviously, is providing a decent level of care for people who need and deserve it. That's the highest priority, but we've got to make it more sustainable. And I work really closely with Mark Butler and Jenny McAllister, my colleagues who are doing a terrific job when it comes to making sure that we can afford the NDIS. That it can continue to deliver in a sustainable way for the people who rely on it. Mark Butler gave a terrific speech about this in about the third quarter of last year which showed where the government was heading. He's done a lot of work with the states and territories, as has the PM and to some extent myself, Jenny McAllister as well, and what that's about is making sure that we can make it more sustainable. I don't contest your conclusion that the costs of it have blown out really substantially, they have. Very, very substantially from its original conception to now. It's putting really extreme pressure on the Budget -
Kohler:
But doesn't that mean, without sort second guessing people, doesn't that mean by definition that it was poorly designed?
Chalmers:
Well I think what's happened since then is that a lot of the assumptions about take‑up in particular proved not to be right, and there are many more people on the scheme than was anticipated when it was brought about. Obviously, there's always an element of uncertainty. But your central point, Alan, that the NDIS is putting the pressure on the Budget is not contested. Not by me, not by the ministers. We know that there's always more work that needs to be done to make sure that it's sustainable, because we believe in the NDIS. It's a good thing that we look after people who need our help. We've got to make sure that we can continue to pay for that into the future and that's what our work's all about.
Kohler:
Just talking about AI now, I think you said that the way you're focusing on AI is to ensure you're dealing with the risks but getting the opportunities, or something like that. But what is your position and Treasury's position on what it's going to do to employment? I mean, because you're having a meeting next week with Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic, and I think he said the other day that 50percent of entry‑level white‑collar employment will be taken. I mean, that becomes an economic issue, right? Not just a technology one.
Chalmers:
Of course it is. I mean, it's really one of the primary influences on our economy. So a couple of important things about that. You're right that we've said we're about capturing the opportunities of AI, spreading the benefits, and keeping people safe. They were the 3 principles that my colleagues, Tim Ayers and Andrew Charlton, built our National AI Plan on. What that does is it recognises that AI can be a positive force in our economy, so long as we manage the risks. And the risks primarily that people will feel or will be worried about, anxious about, are in the workforce.
You won't remember this, Alan, but in 2017 I wrote a book with Mike Quigley about exactly this. The anxiety that people feel about the nature of work changing as technological change accelerates. And you wrote a cover endorsement for that book at the time, Alan, and you said that it was much under‑discussed, this issue. That's changed. It's now front and centre. It's front and centre in the government's thinking, it's front and centre in the public. And one of the things that Mike Quigley and I talked about at the very start of that book is something that John Kenneth Galbraith said a long time ago, which is that the essence of leadership is addressing the major anxieties that people feel in our society, and this is certainly one because people are observing the potential impact on the workforce.
Now, in its best version of itself, AI is about augmenting jobs, making work easier, making our economy more productive at the same time as we teach and train our people to give them the skills to adapt and adopt this technology. That's the best version of it. That's the gold standard where people are sufficiently capable of using AI to augment their work, to make their lives better and to make our economy stronger. That means not dismissing the very real concerns and anxieties people have about how the workforce will change as a consequence of this AI.
Kohler:
Yeah, but when you talk about in relation to energy and stuff, having Treasury modelling various scenarios, right? So you sort of figure stuff out. I mean, are you modelling what happens if unemployment, permanent unemployment goes to, I don't know, 20percent as a result of this? And if so, what does that look like? And does it require, would it require a restructuring of the tax system? And have you thought through what that might look like? I mean, surely you can't just sit around waiting for it to happen?
Chalmers:
Obviously we're not sitting around waiting for it to happen. We haven't modelled that 20percent scenario that you reference, Alan, but we are putting together the Intergenerational Report. I'm hoping to release that in the third quarter of this year, but the work that's going into that is already informing some of our Budget deliberations and other deliberations. And as part of that, if you think about those 5 big shifts that I keep returning to - energy, demography and the like - one of them is technology. Of course, when we think through technological change we think about the impacts on employment. So, the modelling work, the analytical work that the Treasury does, is really about feeding into that Intergenerational Report. Thinking about how our economy and our society will evolve over the course of the next 40years or so.
Kohler:
Are you using AI yourself?
Chalmers:
Look, a little bit. I'm trying to take the advice. I engage with the AI sector all the time, you're right to say that I'm with one of the main players next week. I think the PM is as well. I engage regularly, enthusiastically, with the tech sector and some of these big players in AI, and the advice that you get from people who know about AI is to experiment and use it and try and work out different applications in your own life. So I do a little bit of that. I don't do a lot of it, but I do a little bit of it. I obviously try and read everything that I can about it, because the reason you're asking me about it is because it's one of, if not the main thing, that will determine the way our economy evolves over the next decade or 2. I've got to be right across it. So yeah, I do dabble with it a bit, but mostly I try and read all of the analytical stuff about it too.
Kohler:
Yeah, I mean, have you got anyone looking at whether it can reduce government costs, improve government productivity? I mean, and how best to use it in government? Is that going on?
Chalmers:
Yeah, of course. Absolutely. Here I pay tribute to Katy Gallaher and also my departmental secretary, that used to be Katy's departmental secretary, Jenny Wilkinson. An absolute mountain of work about the application of AI to providing better and more efficient services for people. We think it's a really, really big piece of the puzzle here to make sure that the government is harnessing technological change.
At the end of day our big objective here, Alan, which Mike and I wrote about all those years ago, is to make sure that our people and our society can be beneficiaries, not victims, of all of this churn and change that we're seeing in the world and in our economy. And really, when it comes to technology, that couldn't be more important.
Kohler:
Yeah, but the thing about AI is that you can talk about, you can make sure, whatever, but you're not in control of it. The extent to which companies, firstly, use AI and then, secondly, the extent to which they use it to replace human beings as opposed to enhance human beings, is not within your control at all. You're just waiting to see what happens. I mean, Macquarie put out a report the other day looking at what the banks will do with AI and their base case was an 18percent reduction in employment. Well, as I said on the news, that's 33,000 people, if that's correct. And rapid adoption of AI means 30percent reduction in employment. I mean, you can't control that.
Chalmers:
Well, if your point is that we can't control every development, that's obviously true. And if your point is that it's hard for governments to catch up and keep up, then obviously the faster this technology accelerates, the more true that becomes. But I'm not sure that there is nothing that governments can do. We're working very closely with the labour movement on workforce impacts. My colleague, Amanda Rishworth's doing that. Michelle Rowland's working through the copyright issues and copyright regulations. I work with Tim Ayres and Andrew Charlton on the data centre investment piece, making sure that those huge data centre investments are in our national interest.
So, I don't accept that there's nothing that can be done. I do accept that the pace of change is so substantial and private sector‑led that it is difficult to catch up and keep up. But that doesn't mean that we can't think through ways to look after our people in the context of this accelerating change.
Kohler:
Well, the main thing you'll have to do is pick up the pieces and keep people alive who haven't got a job. I mean, that's what you'll have to do, isn't it?
Chalmers:
You're in a very pessimistic place, Alan, which I understand that people have got anxiety about this and there are elements of this where I share some of the very real concerns that you're putting to me today, Alan. But I think that the onus is on us as decision makers, and dare I say as commentators as well, to help people understand that this has upsides and downsides. Our job, as you said at the start, is to maximise the upsides and try and manage the downsides in a way that gives people a sense of confidence that this change can work in their interests rather than against their interests.
Kohler:
Alright. You're right, I'm pessimistic, but anyway, just before I let you go, are you prepared to confirm that you will reduce the capital gains tax discount in the Budget?
Chalmers:
We haven't taken a decision on that, Alan, and I'm not trying to evade the question genuinely. We've been very upfront in saying that the priority in tax is to deliver these 2 more tax cuts. We're considering a range of other options. I've obviously seen and read and responded to all of the speculation about that particular change but we haven't taken a decision on that. There's a whole range of potential policies that will be put to the colleagues in the course of the coming weeks. Whether or not that's one of them is still to be determined.
Kohler:
Thanks for talking to us, Treasurer.
Chalmers:
Appreciate it, Alan. What a privilege to be in the first one of these. I really enjoyed the chat. Thanks very much.
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
