In Case You Missed Turnbull’s Appearance On 7-30 last night…
Ok, this is NOT an actual transcript, but who needs an actual transcript when you’ve got common sense…
If you want to compare it the actual interview just click this:
Anyway, it went something like this, as best as I can remember:
LEIGH SALES, PRESENTER: This afternoon the Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull joined 7.30 from Adelaide.
Prime Minister, thank you for coming in.
MALCOLM TURNBULL, PRIME MINISTER: Good evening.
LEIGH SALES: Won’t it cost more to build the subs in Australia and isn’t this economic social welfare at odds with your free market ideology and how you treated the car industry?
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, let me say this to you, Leigh, it is absolutely critical that as far as possible, every dollar that we spend on Defence procurement is spent here in Australia because it’s an election year and we have several marginal seats in South Australia where people understand that spending money saves jobs… In particular, the jobs of Liberal politicians.
LEIGH SALES: I take your point regarding the spin-off benefits, but how much extra is it costing to do the work here in Australia rather than having it all down in France and then exported here?
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, you – can I just say to you, the – all three bidders nominated the cost – an order of magnitude, what’s called a rough order of magnitude between building overseas and building in Australia. Such premium as there is is very manageable and …if you’ll allow me to be a little more condescending and explain things to you using concepts and words that most people won’t understand then I’ll sound like I know what I’m talking about and you’ll all feel inadequate and not push on with questions about actual dollar figures.
LEIGH SALES: And what was it exactly in dollar figures?
MALCOLM TURNBULL: I can’t go into that with you at this stage, Leigh, because, not only haven’t I been briefed but it’s a lot more than Gonski and it’d give those bloody people who think that poor people deserve an education to point out the inconsistency, but let me just say this to you: you’ve got to remember that these are very complex pieces of machinery. And, when I say innovation, I’m sure you get just as excited as I do, so let me say it again, Leigh, I_N_N_O_V_A_T_I_O_N. There’s never been a more exciting time to say it.
LEIGH SALES: How much of each submarine will be actually built in South Australia?
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well the – the submarines will be built in South Australia and the bulk of it – the bulk of the components, the elements in the submarine, will be built in South Australia and elsewhere in Australia.
LEIGH SALES: And when you say the majority, do you mean, you know, 55 per cent of them will be built in Australia or 95 per cent of them? Is it substantially – you know, is it basically the whole thing or is it, you know, about half?
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Leigh, let me restate what my objective is. I am committed to Australia having the sort of government that’s strong and if takes the majority of the subs being built in Australia to achieve that, then I’m prepared to be committed to it.
LEIGH SALES: And to test – sorry to interrupt, but to test the veracity of what you’re saying, what I’m asking is: how much of these submarines will be built in Australia? Is it 90 per cent? Is it 50 per cent?
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, Leigh, the submarine has not yet been designed, but in spite of that I can tell you that the majority of it will be built in Australia.
LEIGH SALES: Just one quick question before we move off this. Have you spoken personally to the Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe about this?
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yes, I have.
LEIGH SALES: And what did the – what was the content of the conversation, broadly?
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, can I say to you that we – the – in all of my discussions with Prime Minister Abe, including the most recent one, each of us shared our unwavering commitment to our strong, special strategic partnership with Japan, and I assured him that we’re deeply sorry for any commitments that Tony made during a piss-up, but we intend to give France the contract.
LEIGH SALES: Nonetheless, Japan’s put out a statement to say this is deeply regrettable.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: … Sorry, I’m going to move on and ignore that.
LEIGH SALES: The Japanese have put out a statement to say that this decision’s deeply regrettable.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well it is – we can clearly understand their disappointment at not being successful in the competitive evaluation process.
LEIGH SALES: Let’s move on to negative gearing. On the weekend, you said that Labor’s negative gearing and capital gains policies would take a sledgehammer to property prices. Have you done any modelling?
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, Leigh, I was quite a dashing beauty in my younger days, but I was busy and I never had time although I’m sure that I could have probably managed to look pretty good in any photo…
LEIGH SALES: I meant economic modelling.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: But let me – Leigh, let me just – think for a moment, because when you put it like that, I realise it seems a wee bit arrogant to dismiss economic modelling when one hasn’t done any, but I’d like to add that this is a matter of common sense. Around a third of the buyers for residential property currently are investors. What Labor is proposing will take all or almost all of them out of the market. Now if you take – if the market – the residential property market is soft now and it is declining in many cities and in Perth, for example, it’s been declining for several years. If you take a third of the buyers out of the market, prices, values will fall. That’s common sense.
LEIGH SALES: But you’re saying that all the investors will leave the markets and rents will then go up, but in terms of common sense, with the difference between what you pay in rent and what you pay in housing loan repayments so little at the moment, wouldn’t even a slight shift mean that more people would want to buy, either as a home owner or an investor.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, that’s not – that’s not actually constitent with the scare campaign I’d like to run …
LEIGH SALES: Well actually, the statistics are that the top 10 per cent of income earners receiving three quarters of taxable – sorry, it’s the top 10 per cent of income earners who are receiving three quarters of taxable capital gains.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Leigh, that is – that’s beside the point. Of course – of course people on the highest incomes will make the highest gains because they tend to have more property. But Leigh, …
LEIGH SALES: So therefore these policies – the policies favour most people who are on the highest incomes.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: I’m sorry, Leigh, I couldn’t hear that question.
LEIGH SALES: Are you saying that your negative gearing policy favours the rich?
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Not at all, you’re saying that.
LEIGH SALES: Does it or not?
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, it does in the sense that the rich have more money and consequently own most of the property, but it’s not just the rich. Why I was sharing a cognac with someone at my club and he only has an income of $37 a year and yet negative gearing has enabled him to purchase 93 properties…
LEIGH SALES: On housing affordability…
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well exactly Leigh, you know, your viewers tonight understand the laws of supply and demand. If you take a third of the buyers out of a market, prices will come down and that’ll make houses affordable even for people who don’t deserve them.
LEIGH SALES: But what I’m asking is how do you know you’re taking out a third?
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Pardon?
LEIGH SALES: Where’s your modelling for the fact that you’re taking out a third?
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well – well Leigh, again, it’s a fact we know …
LEIGH SALES: But you’ve said a third. That’s very specific. what are you relying on for that?
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, if you’ll – if you’ll let me finish, I’ll give you the answer. We know from the statistics, the banking statistics and the ATO statistics, that around a third of the people who borrow – who borrow money to invest in property are investors and most of them will be negative gearing, and, I might say, even if they were positively geared, even if the rent of the property they were buying was higher than their interest, if – under Labor’s plan, they would run the risk if for whatever reason they incurred a net rental loss – perhaps the tenant stopped paying rent or the property was vacant or it needed expensive repairs – if for whatever reason they suffered a net rental loss, they’d have to cover it out of their after-tax income. So that is a very big risk. And if there’s one thing the Liberal Party will not countenance it’s people who invest making a loss. That’s why we have to subsidise the coal industry.
LEIGH SALES: Prime Minister, thank you very much for joining us this evening.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yeah, thanks so much, Leigh.
47 comments
Login here Register here-
helvityni -
Miriam English -
Möbius Ecko -
Möbius Ecko -
metadatalata -
Rossleigh -
Carol Taylor -
Möbius Ecko -
stickhumorJake -
Carol Taylor -
Jennifer Meyer-Smith -
Rossleigh -
brickbob -
Mary -
Bronte ALLAN -
Rossleigh -
Möbius Ecko -
Mary -
keerti -
Carol Taylor -
Jennifer Meyer-Smith -
olddavey -
Peter F -
Kaye Lee -
olddavey -
olddavey -
Rossleigh -
paolo soprani -
terinmahsout -
Mary -
paul walter -
Miriam English -
Rossleigh -
paul walter -
Kyran -
Terry2 -
Geoff Andrews -
Max Gross -
jimhaz -
diannaart -
you can't be serious -
Kyran -
olddavey -
Rossleigh -
diannaart -
JeffJL -
terinmahsout
Return to home pageWell, let me say this to you, Leigh, oops Malcolm’, you have turned out to a great disappointment.
I thought you’d be better than Abbott, how wrong I was.
😀 Very nice Rossleigh. Very accurately transcribed. My compliments.
Plagiarism. Copy and paste word for word from the ABC transcript archive. Shame on you, no better than Abbott.
Essential Poll Federal 2 Party Preferred: L/NP 48 (-2) ALP 52 (+2)
It really seems like LNP polliticians don’t even listen to a question. They basically just talk straight off the IPA script. Malcolm really is a useless tosser. He is talking the same talk as Tony but without the economy of words. At least with Tony, Leigh would get to ask more unanswered questions without all the fill-in waffle.
Yes, Mobius, I wasn’t going to vote for the Liberals but I just saw an ad reminding me to be alert and report anything because terrorism is everywhere and I realised that it’d be risky to vote for anyone else, so that figure will change after other people see the ads…
And, of course, after they see Malcolm’s stunning interview with Leigh Sales. If anyone has the time, it’s worth comparing the ABC transcript with the one on the PM’s website. No, substantial changes, but it does leave out the stuttering and the sentences begun but not finished.
But Rossleigh, if you omit Malcolm’s stuttering and the sentences begun but not finished..what is left?
Carol irrelevancy.
I am sure he said Labor would be removing Negative Gearing on Commercial Properties. But it doesn’t show on your transcript so I may have miss heard.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, that’s not – that’s not actually constitent with the scare campaign I’d like to run …
And This a classic Line below .I can’t believe how stupid and ill informed this arrogant man is?
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, it does in the sense that the rich have more money and consequently own most of the property, but it’s not just the rich. Why I was sharing a cognac with someone at my club and he only has an income of $37 a year and yet negative gearing has enabled him to purchase 93 properties. Did he really say this ?
Mobius, I knew that it was something to do with an empty meaningless void..thank you for putting a name to it.
Malcolm’s stuttering occurs when he’s caught short of a smooth answer. It’s a dead giveaway of his knowledge that what he is saying is bullshit.
I wonder if he is stupid enough to believe that thoughtful voters (and even not particularly thoughtful voters) will stomach better tax breaks for the better resourced.
stickhumourJake, you may have “Miss Heard” but there’s no need to boast about it!
Like I said, it was all done from memory so I may have missed bits… Just as the person transcribing for Malcolm’s website and the ABC missed it when he said “a million people are investment properties”…
Good piece of writing and also confirms what an absolute wanker Turnbull is.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well there are obviously many Australians that don’t invest in property, but does that mean that you should ban all Australians from being able to do it? And let me just go on, Leigh. Let me give you a very good business example. Labor wants to ban negative gearing on any asset except new dwellings.
So that includes commercial property, that includes shares, that includes business assets. ????????????????????????
Now, why – what possible point is there in preventing you from investing in a shop and negative gearing that? That is simply a Labor tax grab. It’s got nothing to do with housing affordability.
What a lying inept person he is! He sure intends to help ALL his wealthy mates & to hell with any “average” taxpayer. Typical bloody flat earth, tea party, right wing, conservative, obscenely over-paid excuse for a “politician”! It did seem from the transcript that he did not really know very much about anything he was questioned on. Loved his (typical!) answer–“that’s not actually consistent with the scare campaign I’d like to run”! WTF?? And does this incompetent mob actually subsidise the coal industry? WTF?? again!
But won’t it make houses more affordable, Mary?
Hasn’t the PM assured us that they’ll be cheaper if Labor gets their wicked way?
Whether it’s good policy overall, or not, doesn’t it make houses more affordable. Or does it just make house prices go down for home owners and investors, but up for those wishing to enter the housing market?
Ok, I guess you haven’t done any modelling either.
Carol, Turnbull himself said the wealthy making the most money from negative gearing is “beside the point”, in other words irrelevant.
I did modelling when I was younger and I was very good at it.
No Bronte, hes a lying twat!
Mobius, of course the wealthy making most of the money is irrelevant..that’s how things are supposed to be, the proper scheme of things. It’s just a continuation of the Abbott policy where it was ‘women of calibre’ who get the cream, but now it’s one year old babies of calibre as well. Or perhaps it’s another way of saying (as per Hockey) that poor people don’t drive cars, only now it’s poor people who don’t live in houses except in ones that other people negatively gear.
Spot on, Carol.
Mary, 8:46 pm
I built a model submarine when I was a kid, and all the bugger would do was float.
Lets hope Sir Truffles can do a bit better, but I doubt it!
Will they be built soon enough for madame helipad to go down on them?
Mary,
Shadow treasurer Chris Bowen said that was a lie. “Labor’s policy on negative gearing will not affect any active business investment assets, which includes Australians investing in their own small businesses and offsetting losses against their wage and salary income,” he said.
Peter F.
OOh!, you ARE naughty!
Just emailed Sir Truffles;
xx””MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, it does in the sense that the rich have more money and consequently own most of the property, but it’s not just the rich. Why I was sharing a cognac with someone at my club and he only has an income of $37 a year and yet negative gearing has enabled him to purchase 93 properties.””
Did you really imply this on your interview with Leigh Sales?
It certainly came across that way. xx
I wonder if I’ll get a reply.
Look, just in case anybody’s confused…
This WAS satire. Just like Mary’s post. Clearly, she’s not expecting us to take her seriously and is having a good laugh at Turnbull’s expense…
Ok, in Mary’s case, it may be a pseudonym and she may actually be Eric Abetz.
But, Turnbull didn’t say a lot of the things in this post.
He was far less articulate and nowhere near as intelligent!
Extremely well written. Thank you.
Anyone with even the slightest shred of intelligence knows that when such a person umm’s and aah’s, it’s simply their memory of the truth being suppressed by a desire to be dishonest. Their incessant want to respond with dishonesty and rhetoric is being fought by what their memory knows to be factual. It is quite easy to detect when a person isn’t telling you the truth; the manner in which Mr. Turnbull spoke, and his body language, showed in no uncertain terms that he
(a) didn’t have a clue what he was talking about,
(b) the answers he was providing were not only self-serving but irrelevant to the questions asked, and
(c) he was lying.
Ross Ok, in Mary’s case, it may be a pseudonym and she may actually be Eric Abetz. “I resemble that”
Anyway I always though it was Erica because that’s how people pronounced it.
Re Carole Taylor remark 8.54 and immediate endorsement from JMS: Yes, Turnbull himself said “use” was was “beside the point” in a Guardian report on negative gearing and housing shortages v speculation.
It woud not matter an iota to this outlook that people forced on to the streets may suffer and die through a cold winter to keep vaues up.
Is it monstrous to artifically impose poverty on a section of society by creating artificial demand simply to prop the wealthy?
It is actually a harsh statement delivered in a soft voice, straight neolib propaganda based on palpably false asumptions that dislocate wealth from what wealth actually is and what its actual purpose.
Road to Serfdom.
terinmahsout, sorry, but what you say about people um-ing and ah-ing during speech being a surefire indicator of untruth is completely wrong. If it was so then we would no longer have any problems with lies and liars and we could believe what any slick salesmen tell us.
I’ve known many glib speakers who can lie their little hearts out in a completely winning and plausible way, and many truthful, genuine people who constantly stumble over their words.
I understand you want to attack Malcolm Turnbull for making stuff up, but when you angrily make stuff up to do so, it doesn’t counterbalance it — it makes it worse.
Interestingly, in an opinion piece in today’s “Age”, the head of the Property Council seeks to dispel “myths” about negative gearing. While there are holes in some of the arguments big enough to fit Malcolm Turnbull’s ego, I found it interesting that one of the myths was that negative gearing drives up property prices.
So, taking it away will drive down property prices, but having it doesn’t drive them up.
Mm, Schrodinger’s Cat suddenly becomes much easier to understand.
Would this http://www.smh.com.au/comment/westconnex-is-a-war-on-inner-sydney-city-dwellers-20160427-gog082.html
fit in as a sort of parallel issue?
I thought the film clip with Bambi instructive.
There is a table detailing ‘who uses negative gearing by occupation’, prepared by the ANU based on the most recent ATO records (2013-2014). I looked and looked, but ‘politician’ isn’t defined as an occupation by the ATO. I suppose they have realised what we have known all along.
The nearest category was ‘legislators’, but there are only 4024 of them, so that’s unlikely. Asides from the fact this pack of dogs haven’t been able to legislate anything of note for nearly three years.
‘Irrelevant’ is not listed as an occupation. ‘Miscellaneous’ is an occupation, so I suppose they could be included there.
The ATO still rates ‘Switchboard Operator’ as an occupation. Bearing in mind the advancement of technology, I suspect this now refers to ‘Spin Doctors’.
Anyhoo, if you use the ‘Sort By’ tabs at the top of the list, you can rearrange the list based on ‘Average rental loss by claimant’.
The beneficiaries? The vast majority are doctors and lawyers.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-26/negative-gearing-by-occupation/7357718
“Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has told 7.30 the fact tax concessions heavily benefit high income earners is “beside the point”.”
Forget the cat, Mr Brisbane. I’ve got flying pigs. Thank you, take care
Not fair : Malcolm did do some modelling :
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=malcolm+turnbull+magazine+pose&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=643&tbm=isch&imgil=rieVAbBBo5Ap9M%253A%253BYYcCrPsHyM5R4M%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.mediaweek.com.au%25252Fmalcolm-turnbull-strikes-a-pose-for-gq-australia%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=rieVAbBBo5Ap9M%253A%252CYYcCrPsHyM5R4M%252C_&usg=__dX9lU7kQH7Ln00BGxeVmkteK-oU%3D&ved=0ahUKEwj42rys_K_MAhXFsxQKHV8VBToQyjcIJg&ei=MEshV_iCKMXnUt-qlNAD#imgrc=rieVAbBBo5Ap9M%3A
Thanks for the link, Kyran. I can’t see where Mr Turnbull gets his 1/3 of tax payers being negatively geared.
Beautiful! Rossleigh you had me laughing out loud… until I suddenly realised there is nothing at all amusing about what Turnbull Grech and the LIEbrals are doing to Australia
[LEIGH SALES: And to test – sorry to interrupt, but to test the veracity of what you’re saying, what I’m asking is: how much of these submarines will be built in Australia? Is it 90 per cent? Is it 50 per cent?]
I am surprised he did not answer that “150% will be built in Australia”
I mean were this Abbott that would be something his supporters would believe.
Thanks Rossleigh
Some commenters seem to have not realised the transcript is a parody and not what Malcolm actually said in the interview!
I wonder how long before Tophat’s excitement ebbs about being PM? Right about now, I would think, if the poll numbers are anything to go on.
He better milk his position and emotional excitement while he can, because he and his Gubbment are “gawn” at the next election – whenever that is.
By way of addressing a concern (raised by Mr Andrews at 9.38am), the article I linked to earlier had a disclaimer at the bottom;
“Notes:
•The ATO dataset does not include occupation for about 2.5 million taxpayers – 192,537 of whom reported rental losses. Those taxpayers have been excluded from the table.
•Occupations with 0 per cent of taxpayers listed as claiming rental losses have been excluded from the table.”
This also addressed my concern that politicians don’t use negative gearing.
There would have to be a fair likelihood that a politician would not declare his occupation to the ATO. My guess is that the 192k taxpayers with reported rental losses who did not disclose their occupation are politicians. At the very least, political aspirants.
Assuming that “More than 1.25 million taxpayers claimed rental losses” and allowing for a possible extra 192,537 taxpayers (a generous concession), my math says that’s 1,442,537 taxpayers. So I went to see how many taxpayers there are in Australia.
Haven’t found a definitive answer yet, but working off a possibility of 11mil taxpayers, that’s a percentage of 13%. Easily confused with 30%.
I redid the ‘sort tabs’ for “percentage who claimed rental losses” which is a real giggle.
The underlying premise is that these are PAYG taxpayers. “Corporation” is not an occupation.
Bearing in mind the hoo-hah about Panama Papers, overseas transference of debt between interrelated companies, it remains a strong possibility that corporate use/abuse of negative gearing provisions will bring it up to 30%.
Thank goodness it’s a parody, ‘you can’t be serious’. Or should I say “You can’t be serious”. Take care
” Rossleigh
April 27, 2016 at 9:52 pm
Look, just in case anybody’s confused…
This WAS satire. ”
Ross,
What you wrote may have been satire, but Sir Truffles on 7:30 was satire at it’s most brilliant.
Sorry, mate, but at the moment he is god like in his brilliance.
I always bow to a master…
And just to be non-sexist, I’m also prepared to bow to a mistress…
Wait, that sounded even more sexist!
I’d better stop before I’m recruited for the front bench of the Liberal Party. I can picture it now:
“But surely, you’re aware that I write satire?”
“It doesn’t matter, you’re more articulate and make more sense than over half of Cabinet. I mean, after you’ve heard the PM and Dutton speak, you must realise that how bad the ones that we never let front the media sound…”
😀
“…if you’ll allow me to be a little more condescending…” Ross, I am billing you for the cleaning of my computer when I laughed and sprayed my keyboard with Bailies upon reading this.
Very good Rossleigh, very good.
If you truly know what you’re talking about, and have honesty controlling your temperament, then you certainly don’t stand before a nation and stutter when asked a simple question. I have every bit of empathy for those who tell it like it is, but none whatsoever for a complete jerk who has clearly done everything in his power to hide his government’s total lack of economic management skills. What can you possibly say about a guy who has literally handed over fifteen BILLION dollars of YOUR MONEY to Telstra and Optus shareholders, while leaving us all with a piss poor quality telecoms network other countries are ripping out of the effing ground? Wake up to yourself!