JIM CHALMERS MP
SHADOW TREASURER
MEMBER FOR RANKIN
 

E&OE TRANSCRIPT
RADIO INTERVIEW
ABC AM
FRIDAY, 17 DECEMBER 2021

SUBJECTS: UK Free Trade Agreement; MYEFO; Higher wages under Labor; Stagnant wages and insecure work under the Coalition; Growing the economy the right way so ordinary families get a slice of the action; Coalition’s $16 billion secret slush funds; Labor’s more responsible Budget approach to crack down on waste and rorts.

SABRA LANE, HOST: The Mid-Year Budget Update has been released with more than $106 billion in revenue than was expected last year. Debt is still eye-wateringly high. There are deficits as far as the eye can see. The government's set aside billions for election promises that it hasn't yet announced. But most attention will switch to that free trade agreement today.  Shadow Treasurer is Jim Chalmers. Jim Chalmers. Welcome.

JIM CHALMERS, SHADOW TREASURER: Good morning, Sabra.

LANE: The government's just announced it's signing the free trade deal with the UK today. Do you give the Coalition any kudos for that?

CHALMERS: Obviously trade's an important part of the recovery. We want our producers and the people that work in all of those industries to have the best possible access to big important markets around the world. There's a process that now kicks into place once an agreement like this is signed, it involves Parliamentary Committees and obviously down the track legislation and all the rest of it and we'll make our views known then. But we've been very positive and very constructive all along. We want it to be a good deal for Australia and for Australian workers and we will go through it in that light.

LANE: To the Mid-Year Budget Update, the government's promising a million jobs over the next four years. Unemployment is at 4.6%. There's a forecast of higher wages next year. What guarantee can you give to workers that under a Labor Government their wages would go up?

CHALMERS: Well, as we said all along Sabra, it begins with actually caring about these stagnant wages, which have held the economy back and held working families back in Australia for the best part of a decade of this Morrison government. And the reason why wages have been stagnant is because the government has let the cat out of the bag on previous occasions and said it's a deliberate design feature of their economic policy. So the difference between Labor and Liberal on wages is that we know if you want to get wages moving again, you've got to deal with this issue of insecure work, which is one of the defining problems that we've had in the economy for a long time now, not just because of the pandemic.

So we've got policies there about turning insecure work into more secure work, whether it's dealing with labour hire or dealing with casualisation or some of those other issues at the same time as we try and grow the economy the right way, with support for working families and more secure jobs and a Future Made in Australia based on cleaner and cheaper energy and more skills and more opportunities for more people. I think people are concerned about wages, and they should be. In the government's Mid-Year Budget Update, real wages actually go backwards for the next year. And that's because the government has gone about attacking and undermining the foundations of work in this country and we'll be different.

LANE: Can you guarantee that workers will definitely get higher wages under Labor?

CHALMERS: Well, there are typically no guarantees in the economy with all the uncertainty that's around but I am confident, I am very, very confident that you will get better wage outcomes under Labor, than you will under this government. Look at their record over the last 10 years. Look at our record when we were last in government. The difference between wages growth under Labor and under Liberal is stark. That's because they undermine wages and job security deliberately and we go about things very differently. We recognise you won't recover this economy the right way, without ordinary working families getting a slice of the action, and that's the difference between us and them.

LANE: You're critical of the billions of dollars that have been squirreled away inside the budget in policies made but not yet announced for election spending. Would a Labor Government end that practice?

CHALMERS: Budgets typically involve some anticipating future costs. But the difference here, Sabra, is that this slush fund - the $16 billion that the government squirreled away to spray around for political purposes - is many multiples bigger than what we usually see in that part of the Budget. Typically, there is a handful of billions of dollars here. But this is $16 billion, which is bigger than this government has even ever done before. We think it might be the biggest on record and the Government's got form as we know, all these rorts and all this waste.

LANE: The point of the question - would you commit to changing this and ending that practice?

CHALMERS: As I said to you, Sabra, there is a case for a small amount of decisions taken not announced for legitimate reasons. This Government does not do it for legitimate reasons. This Government does it so they can continue this practice of rorts and waste and politically motivated spending.

LANE: You're not saying that you would end that practice?

CHALMERS: I've said that twice now Sabra, that there is a legitimate case for decisions taken not announced but this Government is not using that part of the Budget in a legitimate way.

LANE: What would your approach be to Budget repair and paying down debt if you win?

CHALMERS: Well three main approaches here, Sabra. I think first of all getting maximum bang for buck when it comes to the investments we make in growing the economy the right way. Secondly, dealing with this legacy, this decade long legacy of rorts and waste and politically motivated spending. We can do much better there and be much more responsible than the government on that front. And then thirdly, as you know, there have been these very important, very welcome developments on the international front, when it comes to making sure that multinational corporations pay their fair share of tax in the countries where they make their profits. So some combination of those three strategies give us the best chance of dealing with this legacy that we would inherit where we'd have a trillion dollars in debt with not enough to show for it. Not enough bang for buck for all of those borrowed dollars. And that's because of all of that politically motivated spending that I've mentioned a couple of times now.

LANE: Jim Chalmers, thanks for your time this morning.

CHALMERS: Appreciate your time Sabra. Merry Christmas.

ENDS