E&OE TRANSCRIPT
RADIO INTERVIEW
ABC BRISBANE DRIVE
MONDAY, 21 SEPTEMBER 2020
 
SUBJECTS: Globalisation; JobKeeper; Politicians with young children; The US election.
 
STEVE AUSTIN, HOST: Jim Chalmers is the Labor Member for Rankin, the Federal electorate on the south side of Brisbane. He's also the ALP's Shadow Treasury spokesperson. Jim Chalmers has the pandemic killed or put a stake through the heart of globalisation?
 
JIM CHALMERS, SHADOW TREASURER: I certainly think it's made people have another think about it, for better or worse. There is an impulse for a lot of countries to pull the drawbridge up; some of that's necessary when it comes to international travel, for example, but some of it is unnecessary. I'm someone who believes that the more engagement with the world, the better. That's certainly true in the economy, but you've got to make sure that globalisation works for real people in real communities and creates jobs in Australia.
 
AUSTIN: But it hasn't, has it, Jim?  It's created massive inequality, it's created a number of global billionaires, and it's hollowed out the middle class.
 
CHALMERS: It's a mixed bag, Steve. It's also created millions of jobs.
 
AUSTIN: Where? In China? 
 
CHALMERS: No, no -
 
AUSTIN: India?
 
CHALMERS: That's not true. Engaging with the world has been demonstrably good for Australia. Our market's not big enough for some of the things that we sell to the world. But you're right that there have been downsides. One of the real factors in the ugly turn that a lot of our politics has taken, and not just here but around the developed world, is that people think that globalisation works against them rather than for them. That is sometimes the case; that is sometimes not the case. The key for us in politics, and for people who care about this in the broader community, is to try and work out ways that globalisation can be something that real people in real communities win from, not lose from.
 
AUSTIN: There's a re-assessment in the Federal Government at the moment about emergency supplies. One of the things that arose - not just with us but with Canada, the UK and other countries like New Zealand - was that when we needed to get emergency supplies of personal protective equipment out of China, even at factories owned by western companies, the Chinese withheld its export or [prevented the stock from] leaving the factory until China had served their own needs first, even though the [factories] were owned by western companies. Doesn't that indicate that when you need globalisation most, it's most likely to fail?
 
CHALMERS: Not necessarily. Certainly the issue you raised is a real one. It's possible to believe in engagement with the world but still believe in having self-sufficiency when it comes to really important things like protective equipment -
 
AUSTIN: I'm not suggesting isolation, but I'm suggesting -
 
CHALMERS: I understand. One of the things that will come out of this crisis is that we will try to be self-sufficient in essential things like protective equipment. One of the heartening things about big chunks of our manufacturing sector here was that they were able to quickly adapt to the new reality. I think that's a pointer to the future. If we want to make things here in Australia, and we should, we need to make sure we've got the R&D, the energy, the smarts, and the wherewithal to have a really adaptive sector. That's all so that when we do need to make things at a pinch as many companies were called upon to do, they're able to do it.
 
AUSTIN: My guest is Jim Chalmers. Jim Chalmers is the Shadow Treasury spokesperson for the ALP. This is ABC radio. Before I move on, have you ever read Jeff Rubin, the Canadian economist? I interviewed him last week. He's written a book called The Expendables, How Globalisation's Hollowed Out the Middle Class. Have you ever read him?
 
CHALMERS: No, I've read some reviews of that book; I intend to read it. I've also got saved the show that you did, but I haven't listened to it yet. That kind of thinking is important because you can be a believer in engagement and still recognise that it hasn't worked for everyone. That puts the onus on us, as I said before, to try and make sure people can win from globalisation, not just lose from it.
 
AUSTIN: He says he's a heretic amongst his economic peers, but he has a pretty interesting argument. I'll move on. Okay, JobKeeper. You've been critical of the Federal Government's deadline on JobKeeper for a while. Today they announced it's basically extended to December 31 [sic]. How does Labor see this?
 
CHALMERS: We've always said that the JobKeeper payments have got to be tailored to what's actually happening in the economy. The Prime Minister says, oh this can't go on forever, and that's true; it can't go on forever. That doesn't mean we should pull support out of the economy too quickly. There are at least three reasons why it's important; first of all, it's important to maintain people in work. Second, we need to be supporting some businesses who are going through this pretty horrible period. Third, we need to be conscious of the money that's circulating in the economy. Even just in the community that I represent, when JobKeeper is cut, there will be about $20 million a fortnight less circulating in our shops and small businesses and that's a problem. 
 
AUSTIN: The problem is, it's coming out of the pockets of the people that are circulating it. 
 
CHALMERS: You and I discussed this a few times and had some good conversations about what the priority has to be. The priority in the near-term needs to be supporting people, their work, and their small businesses. That comes at a cost, which isn't to be sneezed at. We've got to make sure that we get maximum bang for buck. The debt needs to be repaid at some point, but for the time being the priority has got to be jobs.
 
AUSTIN: Alright, so how much will you support this decision to extend it until December 31 [sic]?
 
CHALMERS: There's a couple of different ways to think about this - 
 
AUSTIN: It's got pass through Parliament, basically, Jim Chalmers?
 
CHALMERS: No, Parliament's already given the capacity for the payment to be paid for some time. The actual rate of it and the eligibility for it is up to the Treasurer alone. 
 
AUSTIN: Okay.
 
CHALMERS: We didn't sit in Parliament and debate $1200 versus $1500; we debated whether it got extended beyond September. The Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, literally with the stroke of a pen, just works out what the rate is and who gets it. 
 
AUSTIN: Okay. I understand, thanks for that. As far as you're concerned, yes, this is what you want, however, you're worried about the reduction in the overall amount?
 
CHALMERS: At some future point the JobKeeper payment will be reduced. It won't be a feature of our economy when it's recovered. What we've said all along is don't be in a rush because if you rush it you could cruel the recovery before it really gathers pace. There's a lot of people still hanging out for it. You said rightly in your introduction that some companies are doing well; they shouldn't get it anymore. Companies that are still struggling should be able to access it because the recovery is going to be pretty patchy and we've got a lot of people who need it. In Queensland, something like 670,000 Queenslanders will have their JobKeeper cut. This is really important. We've got to get the timing right.
 
AUSTIN: Just on that point, Andrew Leigh your colleague has been highlighting that many companies have been paying bonuses to executives, while taking JobKeeper to pay staff. Is that legal? It just seems to be incongruous that companies that are taking taxpayer assistance with one hand, then go and give bonuses of different sorts to their executive personnel with the other. It's almost rorting the system? I haven't had a clear answer on this one from the Government?
 
CHALMERS: It is legal, but people are dark about it and for good reason. It's not just Andrew; people in the broader community don't see why money which is for supporting employment ends up in executive bonuses. People are pretty unhappy about that. It comes back to what I said a moment ago; unfortunately the Parliament doesn't really have a role in the eligibility for it. If there are issues like this that can be cleaned up in some way, it's a matter for Josh Frydenberg to have a look at.
 
AUSTIN: This is ABC radio Brisbane. It's 4:44PM. Jim Chalmers is my guest. Jim Chalmers, I'm a bit disappointed. I believe you're letting the side down a little bit. I understand that Federal Parliament has a record number of pregnant politicians, but you haven't added to that number in your family. Is this true?
 
CHALMERS: I've been in the Parliament for seven years, Steve, and we’ve added three to that number in that time. I feel like I have done my bit. 
 
AUSTIN: Alright.
 
CHALMERS: But seriously, it is quite remarkable and it’s fantastic. So many of my colleagues in the Parliament are young mums and young dads. There is a bit of an esprit de corps amongst the young parents in the group, and even when the kids are really little -
 
AUSTIN: "Esprit de corps!" Someone must have Barry White on the inhouse PA system!
 
CHALMERS: You would talk to a lot of people who call in, and they think that the Parliament is full of identical people - 
 
AUSTIN: Heartless auto-mons that aren't human?
 
CHALMERS: Yeah and when you think about it, it really is quite terrific, particularly in terms of the young mums. There are a lot of kids around our team. People help each other out in Parliament House. From time to time, you'll notice somebody kids being looked after by another colleague. It's terrific, it really is.
 
AUSTIN: Who asked you to babysit their kids?
 
CHALMERS: I don't know about babysitting. I have a colleague, Lisa Chesters, and I hang around with her little Daisy a bit. Anika Wells who you probably know has got twins on the way any day now, but she's got another daughter Celeste already who is down in Parliament from time to time. There are kids everywhere and that's a good thing. 
 
AUSTIN: This is ABC Radio Brisbane. My guest is Jim Chalmers. Jim Chalmers, who would the ALP prefer as US President in November? Trump? Biden? None of the above?
 
CHALMERS: We don't have a vote in that election as you know. There's a long-standing principle where we try not to involve ourselves in the domestic politics of another country. You might recall John Howard hopped into Barack Obama when he was a Senator running for President. I think that went down really badly. 
 
AUSTIN: Billy Shorten did the same thing when Donald Trump was running for the role?
 
CHALMERS: And Josh Frydenberg too.
 
AUSTIN: So you all do it! Answer my question.
 
CHALMERS: I don't want to do it. Let me say this; I am concerned about the direction that the United States has been headed in. I am worried about race relations. I am worried about how they've handled the pandemic. It's not a great thing for the world or for the global economy for that matter to have a great country like the US on its knees like it is. I'm concerned about that. Again, I won't weigh into the domestic politics but you asked me about the candidates, and I think there is something to admire about Joe Biden. 
 
AUSTIN: What is it?
 
CHALMERS: He's had this most extraordinary life, Steve, where he lost the most of his family in a car accident when he was first elected to the Senate in his 20s in the 1970s. He lost his son Beau, who was a real rising star in democratic politics in the US quite recently. I read his book about that loss. There's lots to admire about Joe Biden. I'm not saying we have a preference. We play the cards that we're dealt. As a nation we try and get the best deal that we can from the Americans for the Australian people. But on a personal level I do admire Joe Biden. 
 
AUSTIN: So you've read one of Joe Biden's books?
 
CHALMERS: He's got this book, it's basically about his son Beau and losing him and all of the loss he's gone through in his life. He's been around politics for a really long time and it's a fascinating story. 
 
AUSTIN: Have you read any of the books about Donald Trump?
 
CHALMERS: I'm actually half way through listening to the Bob Woodward one -
 
AUSTIN: Rage?
 
CHALMERS: Rage, yeah. I listen to that when I'm having a gallop in the mornings - 
 
AUSTIN: So you do audio book reading?
 
CHALMERS: Yeah, a little bit. A little bit of podcasts, a little bit of books, mostly music; but this morning I was listening to Bob Woodward. 
 
AUSTIN: So what do you think of Rage by Bob Woodward so far?
 
CHALMERS: It's pretty fascinating. He's got a long history, Woodward, obviously Many decades of pretty extraordinary investigative reporting. I'm only just starting it now, but it's a fascinating listen.
 
AUSTIN: Thanks for coming on once again.
 
CHALMERS: Thank you, Steve.
 
ENDS