Angus Taylor has improvised Coalition policy on migration and superannuation in a post-budget address, giving different targets for net migration than the opposition leader, Peter Dutton.
Taylor said that the Coalition would seek to cut net migration by 25% over three years, suggesting the reduction would get shallower over time compared with the initial 100,000 cut proposed by Dutton and other senior shadow ministers.
Taylor also told the National Press Club on Wednesday that “Australians deserve the opportunity to use their super for every possible investment that’s available”, a comment which on its face goes far beyond proposals to expand the Coalition’s super for housing policy.
The treasurer, Jim Chalmers, labelled Taylor’s appearance “shambolic”. He told reporters in Tasmania the shadow treasurer had “completely and utterly stuffed up” because he “couldn’t answer the most basic questions about the centrepiece of Peter Dutton’s budget reply” about migration.
In his Thursday evening budget reply Dutton promised to cut the permanent migration program by 25% from 185,000 to 140,000 for the first two years, followed by 150,000 then 160,000 in the next two. The cuts would affect skilled workers and applicants for family visas, who would face longer wait times.
Over following days, Dutton and the shadow home affairs minister, James Paterson, added that – in addition to cutting permanent migration – the Coalition also wanted to cut the net overseas migration rate from 260,000 to 160,000, a cut of 38%.
Net migration refers to the difference between those entering and leaving Australia, a figure that includes those on temporary visas, such as temporary skilled or international student visas.
In his speech, Taylor said Australia “is in an entrenched GDP per person recession”.
Asked whether cutting net migration to 160,000 a year would plunge Australia into an actual recession, the shadow treasurer said the Coalition was “absolutely not against immigration” and claimed it would improve productivity relative to Labor.
“In answer to your question about [net overseas migration], we’ve said over the coming years we’ll achieve a 25% reduction,” he said.
Asked to clarify if this was the cut to permanent migration, Taylor replied “and the Nom [net overseas migration], that’s a reasonable number”.
“Permanent migration is part of that. So, too, is making sure that we have a sensible level of international students.
“We think that we can achieve a net migration in Australia which is consistent with the level of housing supply that is realistic. You cannot move housing supply overnight so you need to bring those two numbers into line.”
Taylor was then asked repeated questions to clarify how his claim of a 25% cut was consistent with Dutton suggesting net migration should shrink from 260,000 to 160,000.
“I am talking over the full years,” he said. “The position here is this: Peter’s already given you the permanent migration numbers and the overall number over the next couple of years. Over the coming years, over a term of government there will be a 25% reduction. That is the plan.”
Taylor rejected the claim the 25% net overseas migration cut was different to Dutton’s figures, urging reporters not to “confuse permanent net migration and Nom and the timeframes”.
“At the end of the day, we think we can free up 100,000 homes for Australians and it is not hard to work out the calculations that I have to support that so I will leave you go to the commentary.”
Taylor was asked about the Coalition’s policy of allowing first home buyers access to their super given all but the wealthiest young couples would not have enough for a deposit.
“Well, look, we think Australians deserve the opportunity to use their super for every possible investment that’s available and right now you have a situation where Australians can invest in anyone’s home except their own,” he replied.
“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, is still part of their accumulating pool of assets that they will use in retirement.”
In his speech Taylor said Australia had “high rates of income tax and one of the highest company tax rates” and the Coalition was “focused on tax reform that enhances incentives and boosts investment” but did not explain how it might revamp income tax cuts.
Taylor dead-batted questions about the CSIRO’s GenCost report finding a nuclear power plant would cost at least $8.6bn and not be ready by 2040 at earliest, arguing that “all sorts of assumptions” are made to generate such projections.
“One of them is how much transmission you avoid by building a generator on a new or existing site.”
Taylor said he thinks nuclear “can be commercially viable” which would mean it would not require subsidies. However, the GenCost report found firmed renewables including transmission costs were cheaper than nuclear.
