JIM CHALMERS MP
SHADOW TREASURER
MEMBER FOR RANKIN

E&OE TRANSCRIPT
TELEVISION INTERVIEW
ABC AFTERNOON BRIEFING 
THURSDAY, 29 APRIL 2021

SUBJECTS: Treasurer’s fiscal policy backflip; Treasurer’s failure to reveal a plan for two million unemployed or underemployed Australians; Morrison Government’s failure to rollout vaccines; Morrison Government’s failure to repatriate stranded Australians by Christmas; Andrew Laming.

PATRICIA KARVELAS, HOST: Jim Chalmers, welcome.

JIM CHALMERS, SHADOW TREASURER: Thanks, Patricia.

KARVELAS: Do you welcome the Government’s decision to hold off on Budget repair until unemployment is below 5 per cent?

CHALMERS: Well, I think what the Treasurer has done today in that speech is just push back any Budget nasties until the other side of an election. Clearly, it's been obvious to the rest of us for some time that now's not the time for austerity. Clearly, there is a need to get closer to a more realistic sense of full employment, so those developments are welcome. But, you know, one speech from the Treasurer in the lead up to the Budget is not really what matters. What matters is what the government actually delivers. They've had an issue with announcement versus delivery. Their record on jobs for much of the last eight long years, has been job insecurity, underemployment and stagnant wages and there was nothing in the Treasurer's speech today which resembles a plan to turn that around. 

KARVELAS: OK, but on that benchmark that they have articulated, 5% unemployment before they actually start paying back the debt, is that a reasonable benchmark? Is that the same one you’ll be working towards?

CHALMERS: Well, we've certainly said for some time now, for some months, that we think it's appropriate that the Government do its bit until we get much closer to full employment, because without getting much closer to full employment, which has probably got a four in front of it, then we won't get that upward pressure on wages, and we won't get people getting those growing wages that they need and deserve to look after their families. So certainly we've been in that cart for some time now. The Reserve Bank has been saying for some time that full employment is something south of 5 per cent, when it comes to the unemployment rate. That seems to be a sensible outcome. I guess the point that we're making today, is that it wasn't that long ago the Treasurer was saying they'd start cutting the Budget when it got below 6 per cent. Now, he's saying below 5 per cent. I think he's making this speech for political reasons, rather than economic reasons, and that's to push these cuts to the other side of the election. 

KARVELAS: Are the priority areas the government has identified – aged care, mental health, women and defence – the right things to be focusing on? 

CHALMERS: Well, as you know, Patricia, we've had a policy on childcare out there since the last Budget Reply from Anthony Albanese with the help of Amanda Rishworth. So, we've identified childcare as a really pressing priority. Aged care, we've had the Royal Commission. There's been eight long years of failure when it comes to aged care. People aren't getting the care that they need and deserve in their later years. So, those are obvious priorities. But also, of course, cleaner and cheaper energy is a priority. Making sure that people have got the skills they need; that we're teaching and training people to keep up with technology, to make sure that we can turn our ideas into jobs. All of these issues are really important. We need to see some progress made in these important areas in the Budget, because as it stands right now, the Government has racked up more than a trillion dollars in debt but they have very little to show for it, in terms of more opportunities for more people. And this Budget cannot be another missed opportunity to invest in people, to invest in their jobs, and their future. We want people to get ahead in the recovery from this recession. As it stands right now, too many people are at risk of being left behind. 

KARVELAS: Do you believe the Government should be looking at further tax cuts?

CHALMERS: Well, I think that there is a case to extend some of that tax relief for workers on low and middle incomes. As it stands right now, until the government, or unless the government changes this, there’ll actually be a tax hike in the Budget for low and middle income earners. And that doesn't seem like a good idea to me, particularly when you consider that there are tax breaks coming down the line which overwhelmingly favour the highest income earners. So, we expect that there'll be some movement on that in the Budget. We would like to see tax relief, if it's in the Budget, to be directed towards those who need it most. The Government would have much more room in the Budget to provide cost of living relief to middle Australia if they hadn't wasted all of this money on partisan rorts. Whether it's sports rorts, dodgy land deals, taxpayer-funded executive bonuses, JobKeeper for companies that didn't need it because they were already profitable, all this money spent on political advertising and market research. If the government hadn't wasted all of that money, there’d be more room to do the right thing by people who want to work hard, and get ahead, and provide for their families.

KARVELAS: You mentioned earlier that you believe that the Government is just trying to kick the can down the road and there’ll be Budget cuts after the election, that it’s a political calculation it’s making. Labor too says you want to pay down debt, so isn’t that the same for you? That you’ll be articulating Budget repair, potential Budget cuts, after an election as well? 

CHALMERS: The difference is, Patricia, that we've been consistent all along. We’ve said that there is a case to borrow money to support the economy, when we're in the deepest, most damaging recession for almost 100 years. We've said, since the GFC, that there is a role for government when people are doing it especially tough, that if the government is going to rack up a trillion dollars in debt, we need to have more jobs and opportunities to show for that, it needs to have a lasting benefit. What we said about Budget repair is that it's important that we don't flick the switch to austerity too soon, that we don't withdraw support from the economy before the recovery has gathered sufficient pace. We've been consistent about that all along. The inconsistency here, is that Josh Frydenberg, a matter of weeks ago, was saying that it was time to start cutting the Budget because unemployment was below 6 per cent. He’s changed now. We know that they've got form on making these sorts of decisions for political, not economic reasons. And that's the point that we've made today. 

KARVELAS: OK, so if you don’t believe in flicking the switch too early, as you’ve explained, does that mean that under a Labor Government debt would be paid down slower than under a coalition Government?

CHALMERS: We will make our position clear on the relative fiscal policies of the government and ourselves, once we've seen the Budget. Between the Budget and the election, people will be in absolutely no doubt about the relative position of our budget versus the Government’s Budget. It would be irresponsible to settle that now before we've seen it.

KARVELAS: Sure, but you’re saying you think they’ll go too fast, you think that there’s a political calculation they’ve made, which leads me to think that you won’t go as fast, and this debt we’re talking about, a trillion dollars, will burdening the country for longer. That inevitable, isn’t it?

CHALMERS: No, the point that I'm making, Patricia, is that it would be irresponsible to settle our final Budget position now before we've seen the Government’s Budget. We don't know what we would inherit from the Government. The point that we're making is that the level of debt is one issue, It's at record levels. When it was $200 billion, the Government said it was a debt and deficit disaster. Now, it's many multiples of that, a trillion dollars and heading north. The point that we're making is, what matters here is the quality of the spend. What matters here is that the Government doesn't flick the switch to austerity. They were keen to do that before the election. Now, for political reasons, they’ve pushed that to the other side of the election. We've been consistent all along, in saying there is a desperate need in the economy, when we’ve still got almost two million people unemployed or underemployed, for the Government to support the recovery. If the Government’s come to that view, then fine. They've come to that view for political, rather than economic, reasons. We've been making the economic case since the beginning. 

KARVELAS: What are the broader economic implications of the idea that some form of hotel quarantine will have to stay in place for the next two to three years, which has clearly been articulated today in the Victorian Government’s own papers, that that’s the realistic timeframe we’re looking at here?

CHALMERS: I think it all comes back to the federal Government’s failure on the vaccination rollout. Whether it's this time frame on quarantine, whether its domestic and international borders, whether it's confidence in our small business and medium sized business community, all of it comes back, i my view to the Government’s complete botching of the vaccination rollout. The fact that we can only get a couple of million vaccinations away, when they said there’s be four million by the end of March. I think that has consequences right through the system, including for the economy. The economy is recovering. That's pleasing. It's welcome. It's expected. But it's also uneven, and patchy, and uncertain. And one of the uncertainties here that we're hostage to, is the Government’s failure to get those vaccinations away on the timetable that they promised. That will mean that all of these other various timeframes will be delayed as well.

KARVELAS: Now, the Victorian Government wants the Commonwealth to sort of bankroll the building of infrastructure for a quarantine facility, which is more like Howard Springs, do you think they should be paying for that? Who’s responsible for paying for that?

CHALMERS: Well, I haven’t been through the detail of the proposal, Patricia, and I'd like to do that before commenting on it. But I think the broader point here is that there's a role for national leadership when it comes to quarantine facilities. That's the point that Jane Halton made in the report that she gave to the Government many months ago, that the Government has more or less ignored. If you think about the issues here in quarantine, you think about the issues in terms of getting people home, the big challenge here, the big problem here in the near term, is the Government more or less washed their hands of their responsibilities when it comes to quarantine. And that's been costly, just like the vaccination debacle has been costly. 

KARVELAS: Now, on another issue, Bill Shorten, former Opposition Leader, of course, but now a frontbencher on your side of politics, he’s kind of broken ranks with the Labor position, which is also the Government’s position, and he thinks that repatriation flights should be happening with India. He says that he’s representing his own constituents. Do you think that they should be, too?

CHALMERS: I haven't seen the whole interview that Bill gave, I'm aware, broadly, of his comments and I think that there's a lot of consistency there. I mean, what Bill's saying, is that we have a responsibility as a nation to try and get people home, particularly where there are difficult situations like in India, but we need to do that consistent with the medical advice. We've tried to be respectful and mindful of that medical advice throughout. I think it comes back to what I was saying a moment ago about quarantine. You know, so many of these people who might be caught in India now, were told by the Prime Minister that they'd be home by Christmas. And because of a series of failures, with cascading consequences for people, people haven't gotten home soon enough. And many people are stuck in India. And so I think it's entirely reasonable for Bill to point out that the national Government has a role in quarantine, has a role in getting stranded people home, but we need to be conscious, at the same time, of not straying too far from the medical advice. These are the balances that the Government has to strike. They overpromised and underdelivered when it came to getting stranded Australians home before Christmas and, unfortunately, so many people are still paying the price for that mistake. 

KARVELAS: Liberal MP Andrew Laming, he’s now revealed he has ADHD and he’s been diagnosed. And it’s been revealed by News.com.au this afternoon that this empathy training he was ordered to do by the Prime Minister ended up being just an online course rather than something more immersive, I think the lockdown had something to do with that, but is an online course in empathy enough to help with his issues?

CHALMERS: Look, I'm not an expert on ADHD, and I'm reluctant to wade into that. Clearly, I think the community will have an expectation that that training was more substantial than that. But I don't know the contents of that training. I think the broader issue here is that Andrew Laming shouldn't be in the parliament. And, you know, I think when it comes to that seat that he is vacating, we'll be contesting that vigorously, because the people from the Redlands next door to me in that seat of Bowman, they deserve much better representation than they’ve been getting. 

KARVELAS: Thank you so much for your, time.

CHALMERS: Thanks, Patricia.

ENDS