‘It looks like a tax grab’: TV host grills Labor minister over CGT changes

Added: 2026-05-22

[00:00:00]Let's bring it back home. Uh it's a week since the budget was handed down. The cell's always difficult, but this time around it feels a little bit more difficult. Let's bring in Tim as he's the industry and innovation ministry.

[00:00:11]Joins me here in the studio. Do you think this cell would have been a bit easier if you just limited CGT changes to housing? Because that is the central promise of this budget, is it not? Well, it's it's certainly true that what the budget offers for first home buyers in into the future is a leveling of the playing field. Like that is for for uh young people who um who feel like the scales are tipped against them in the property market. How does that work?

[00:00:40]This is one of the big this is well it because that's that's how you do these kind of changes. But it's really leveling the playing field now. But but but it in the same way that those uh original changes have distorted the playing field over time for people the this set of changes will make a real difference over time. And it's not the only thing that the government is doing in the housing market of course like there's not one magical lever that you can pull in the housing market to resolve all of these challenges. We are we are on the supply questions on the income questions as well. you know, really focused on lifting the incomes of low and middle inome Australians. Uh, and and also these tax changes will remove that distortion and restore some fairness to the system.

[00:01:25]>> Well, how does though taxing all asset classes more help people get into housing? Well, I think I think on the the uh changes that have been made more broadly than the property market >> uh that there is uh you know, of course there's mixed views out there and of course there's going to be a hot contest after Tim.

[00:01:47]>> Well, I'm I'm getting all sorts of all sorts of feed. Yeah, of course. Of course, like these are these are significant changes.

[00:01:54]>> Uh it it is a change in the government's approach and it's our obligation to explain that. No problems at all. That's that's well well it's it's it's going as you would expect it to. There there is controversy.

[00:02:07]>> Very well.

[00:02:07]>> Well well well well of course there's there's always controversy when you do difficult change. But but if you look at the substance here, the treasur is engaging with um in particular the startup community about about how we make sure these changes land in a way that supports the dynamism uh of that important small but important part of the Australian economy.

[00:02:31]>> When are those carveouts coming?

[00:02:32]>> Well, we're doing we we've already made decisions in the budget research and development tax incentive changes that are really important. two-year loss carry back, instant asset write offs, but those are significant.

[00:02:43]>> There was a promise of consultation in the budget as well. And now we have uh today this revelation that it was only ever just going to be on housing, these CGT changes and Treasury in the last uh four weeks before the budget said actually why don't you do all asset classes.

[00:02:59]>> Well, I >> looks like a tax crab.

[00:03:01]>> It's well well it certainly isn't that.

[00:03:03]I mean Jim has explained uh that that the impact of these changes over the forwards will be neutral will be neutral.

[00:03:11]>> Sure.

[00:03:12]>> Uh and and and uh improvements in revenue terms are being returned to the budget bottom line. Like there is that that that is what that is >> return to taxpayers with this measly $250. Well, there there's a range of changes including changes for small business that are very positive. Like the the locking in the um the uh the changes that we've made on loss carryback and instant asset writeoffs provides real certainty for small business. It's a real improvement. Yeah.

[00:03:43]because there's a there's there's of course a political discussion about this but in substance the min the treasur is engaged in this in this area as he indicated in the budget that he would be >> uh we'll we'll keep working those issues through but in substance what this does is an important reform and important rebalancing of the tax system. uh we're not um we're not as as uh some of the social media memes um indicate abolishing the capital gains tax discount.

[00:04:16]>> And might I just add that that didn't come from mainstream media or political opponents? That is a grassroots reaction from the business community.

[00:04:25]>> Sure. How do you but but let me just finish the point.

[00:04:28]>> As in you don't buy that.

[00:04:30]>> No, let me let me finish the point though, Laura. The the the the capital gains tax discount >> Yeah.

[00:04:36]will now be based on uh real gains, not nominal gains. That is a more rational uh more effective well not not no >> okay it's not unless we're in a really high inflation environment >> for many businesses over time >> their their gains are not you know that they will pay you some people will pay less tax some people on capital gains may end up being treated differently and being paid more >> what you think you'd pay less tax because >> forgive me if I'm wrong, but a government doesn't design a a CGT tax like this to take less tax. They're doing it for more revenue.

[00:05:20]>> Well, these you are doing it for more.

[00:05:21]>> No, no. These tax changes are being designed with the objective like come back to what is the what is the core objective here >> in housing is to remove those distortions from the housing market that have tipped the scales in the wrong direction and give young people a fair shake.

[00:05:39]Well, that that it it it's it's the right thing to do uh to make sure that we've got an even approach um across asset classes and and you know, we've made uh significant changes in the in the interests of wage earners um over the course of the term of this government.

[00:05:56]>> Are you saying 68 cents a day is a significant change?

[00:05:59]>> Well, we've delivered five tax cuts for for wage earners.

[00:06:03]We've worked hard to lift wages as well so that Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn.

[00:06:08]>> Do you think they feel like they're keeping more of what they earn?

[00:06:11]>> Well, well, well, I think that they noticed that our opponents went to the last election with a plan to lift income tax for ordinary Australians. We went with a have promised to give back bracket creep.

[00:06:23]>> Well, that was a mistake.

[00:06:25]>> Our our opponents are in a fine old mess, aren't they? M >> uh the Angus Taylor uh it was was the angry >> sure >> performance last week feels like three weeks ago but last week >> was an angry performance with an uncosted unfunded >> sure being government Tim it feels messy does it not >> listen you you raised him I'm I I wouldn't have I wouldn't have pointed to the to the sort of ramshackle um mess that is the coalition's approach on on tax and budget I mean this is a this is a party that that had left us with escalating deficits.

[00:07:03]>> Okay.

[00:07:03]>> Promised surpluses, never delivered them, went to the last election with a proposal for a income tax increase, and now are proposing >> Yeah.

[00:07:12]>> a a a unfunded, uncosted proposition that could only lead to cuts to Medicare and health and education.

[00:07:18]>> Well, let's talk about Messi and Angry then. Enter >> Chris Mintz.

[00:07:24]>> Oh, yes. He says that you're taking too much of people's own money >> and that what you've done is not reform.

[00:07:30]>> Well, well, my my experience is that there's always um uh uh some contest between levels of government in Australia.

[00:07:39]>> Uh and the the truth on uh bracket creep and tax reform and income reform for ordinary Australians is this is a government that has done the big things here. Five income tax cuts lift to the wages of lift to the wages of ordinary Australians.

[00:07:57]>> Yeah. Which has been chewed up by inflation and that means that means that uh incomes have risen. Uh that is a good thing. We have done the big things in this area. Now >> Anthony Albanese has led a government issue. I mean this is not me speaking.

[00:08:12]This is saying something he says something needs to be urgently done about bracket creep. what you've done in this budget is very far from urgent.

[00:08:20]>> Five income tax cuts for ordinary Australians. That's >> again, this is a Labor premier that is saying that he's meant to be on your team. He doesn't buy what you're trying to sell right now.

[00:08:31]>> We we are a government that is working carefully across party lines with state governments right around Australia. you know, in my own work, um the the kind of culture and the the leadership approach that Anthony Albanes has taken means that I'm working carefully with governments uh like the Rockliffe government, uh the Malinoscus government, the Cook government, Chrisouli government on all these big industrial challenges, making sure we're building a a resilient economy. Of course, of course, working with the New South Wales government. I just make the point that we're working across party lines in the interests of Australia and of course from time to time um there'll be different views uh and there'll be uh there'll be a lot of media attention on those things but in substance we're a government that is working in the national interest with the states >> right right across party lines >> y >> uh and we're doing that in a careful kind of way. Would you rule out changing the CGT changes that we put in the budget now that you've got feedback from the community? Is there a chance that you will and should just limit it to housing?

[00:09:38]>> Well, in in in substance, these reforms are very clear. We're very clear. As as we've said, as Jim said on budget night itself, >> is there a chance come to a different view though, Tim? where where uh Jim uh Jim Charmers uh is leading uh those discussions with the startup community to make sure these changes landed the right way. It is a diff you know they're in a different situation. We're working carefully uh with that with that community with the tech sector because that's what's in the national interest.

[00:10:06]>> You might come to a different view though.

[00:10:08]>> Well, no. I've said we we are we've we've landed our approach in the budget >> in terms of that narrow set of questions around um around startups and venture capital. of course um uh uh Jim will keep working those issues through.

[00:10:23]There's some implementation questions and I know from my own discussions with that sector uh you know there's there's uh there's there's plenty of room for a good discussion there and we're we're keeping it moving because that's in you know that's in the interests of what is an important small but important part of the Australian economy.

[00:10:39]>> Did Treasury get it wrong here? Your polit political instincts were right to start with >> no CGD we've landed a good budget.

[00:10:47]>> We've landed a good budget.

[00:10:48]>> Yeah. Yeah. Have you seen the polls?

[00:10:50]>> It will. Well, well, no, I don't pay too much attention to those. I mean, I've been pretty consistent over the years.

[00:10:55]>> I I have been pretty consistent on that.

[00:10:57]>> Telling me that I don't pay attention toist over over my whole life in politics.

[00:11:02]>> Uh, you know, we we we are a government that wants to do the big things in the Australian national interest. We know that we >> based on the feedback you've had over the last week, is there a chance that you would go to Jim Charas, you know what, maybe we should just limit the CGT changes to housing only because it will make a crisp a more crisp message about what you're trying to sell is that more people will get into their >> own very good budget. This is a very good budget uh that achieves.

[00:11:30]>> So, you've got everything absolutely right.

[00:11:33]Well, well, we we have said that we are going to I'm not not sure how much we can go around the Malbury bush on this question, Laura. I I know, but but but in relation to that uh narrow set of questions, Jim was clear on budget night. We've been consistent ever since >> and and to be fair, >> we're engaging on some of these questions uh in the leadup to the budget. That's the normal approach. All right, a couple of other questions today because uh One Nation is about to unveil a new gas tax policy. It would include uh scrapping the PRRT altogether. These are all grandfathered measures, by the way. It would mean uh a 10% royalty tax at the gas well for offshore only, and this is all just offshore. And it would mean a kind of Norway style uh investment uh equity scheme uh for the taxpayer.

[00:12:24]>> Do you like anything there? Well, it's really playing catchup uh with where the Albanese government has got to on the gas reservation decision that we announced in the budget. That is a landmark labor reform uh reserving 20% of Australian gas exports for Australian industry and Australian households. So, not a not a not a taxation arrangement, >> but but a reservation arrangement that imposes a heavy burden. You know, it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a significant obligation.

[00:12:57]>> Yeah.

[00:12:58]>> On on Australian exporters, >> would it not?

[00:13:01]>> Well, well, our focus, >> it would cost the taxpayers.

[00:13:03]>> Our focus is on making Australian heavy industry more competitive through having the lowest possible gas prices.

[00:13:09]>> Okay.

[00:13:09]>> Supporting our electricity system and supporting households. That's our approach. It's a much bigger, much bolder approach.

[00:13:15]>> Yeah. Uh we we do have um special investment vehicles um uh that that contain uh future fund uh hundreds of billions of dollars. Our various other special investment vehicles investing in Australian manufacturing >> fund right >> one nation has voted against all of those propositions with their friends in the Liberal Party. Now they've come they've come up with this. Can we just like a 10% royalty?

[00:13:38]>> The reservations a much bigger reform.

[00:13:39]Much bigger reform >> at the gas well. You wouldn't support something like that >> because because we're focused on a reservation scheme that reserves Australian gas.

[00:13:49]>> Okay.

[00:13:49]>> For Australian industry and Australian households. That's going to underscore our future competitiveness and future energy advantage. That's what we've delivered. We will really deliver it. I I I you know um these right-wing parties will continue a contest amongst each other uh trying trying to establish some brand differentiation. which is why I'm this so interesting right it's not you know typically one nation this is hugely interventionist in an industry that has you know got behind uh one nation I would say and it's where their constituents are that's why I ask you because they're talking about this kind of Norwegian scheme for future investment where taxpayers take a risk but also there could be huge reward on the other side of that do you think there is merit in looking at something like that >> it's just catchup politics >> it's not catch up because you haven't done it it's it's catchup politics Because our reform in gas reservation is a much bigger reform >> that is real that will be implemented by a real government.

[00:14:45]>> Yeah.

[00:14:46]>> Uh that that will deliver a real change for Australians and in particular in particular will deliver that change in terms of future competitiveness for Australian heavy industry our foundational industrial capacity.

[00:14:59]>> Um that that that will deliver for bluecollar jobs in the regions and suburbs. Um this is um you know this is a sort of um far-right political seminar basically.

[00:15:10]>> Uh it it's it's it's about a contest between the Liberals and Nationals and One Nation about who can outdo each other. We've delivered the big reform in gas. It it's a generational landmark labor reform that will reshape >> the future economy in the interests of Australians and in particularly in the interests of heavy manufacturing. Ed Husk's not exactly a notable far-right politician though, is he?

[00:15:33]>> Certainly not. No, he's a he's >> he says there should be a 25% tax on revenue.

[00:15:38]>> Of course, there's different views around the place. No, I'm saying >> um uh Mrs. Hansen and and her colleagues are like are engaged in a sort of boutique seminar on this question.

[00:15:52]That's fine. and they are playing catchup with a landmark labor reform on gas reservation that is a much bigger piece of policy uh than uh than um you know whatever it is that these people are going to announce this afternoon.

[00:16:05]>> One final question just to really make everyone in the studio nervous about timing here. Um AI I know Anthropic has been here this week and you've probably been meeting with a former ambassador to Australia. Um what what are they asking for? Um, are they asking you to relax on copyright laws for a quidd proquo in exchange for greater investment and engagement engagement here?

[00:16:31]>> We we've been really clear on this copyright question.

[00:16:34]>> Uh, the the the the first thing is that there'll be no undermining of copyright protections >> um with the with the Albania government in Australia, >> right? No tinkering, no change, no undermining, >> no no undermining. It is Sorry, let me finish the let me finish the second point. Does no undermining mean no change? Because >> I was hoping I was hoping to keep going and just do the second bit which is of course there there is a there is a problem here where copyright holders, creatives uh authors uh you know who who we want to protect and make sure uh that they are being paid for their hard work.

[00:17:10]Mhm.

[00:17:11]>> Um uh you know I I I do want to see them get a fair shake and I do want to see uh uh where we can find opportunities for money to flow for them. Then then I want to see that.

[00:17:24]>> But does no undermining mean no change?

[00:17:26]>> Well well well we won't be undermining copyright protections mean no change.

[00:17:30]>> There's there's we are not envisaging a change to copyright protections. Right.

[00:17:34]Like >> I mean I know I've got PTSD from you know Albo saying 50 times no change to negative gearing. So does no undermining mean no change?

[00:17:44]>> It it means that that that there will be no circumstance where people have less copyright protections and we are not we are not contemplating we're not in the middle of some process of contemplating copyright change. I do want to see u uh people being paid. I do want to see um uh and and so and and we have been as engaged with uh representatives of copyright holders on these questions who share that ambition as well.

[00:18:09]>> Uh and we'll keep talking, we'll keep listening to people because this is an important issue for Australia and defending not just the rights of copyright holders but also you know the Australian culture that we've developed over time, authors, artists, playrs, um you know uh uh bands, musicians, like that's an important part of our culture.

[00:18:26]>> Exactly. news. Um, >> it's all uh >> it's all it's it's all, you know, making sure that we back them is is pretty important to this government.

[00:18:35]>> All right, good to see you. Put your shoes on. Uh, we'll check in with you soon, Tim. Thank you.