JIM CHALMERS MP
SHADOW TREASURER
MEMBER FOR RANKIN
E&OE TRANSCRIPT
RADIO INTERVIEW
ABC BRISBANE DRIVE
MONDAY, 22 FEBRUARY 2021
SUBJECT/S: News Media Bargaining Code; Government’s hiring credit could be a JobTaker not a JobMaker; Protections for gig economy workers.
STEVE AUSTIN, HOST: Let's go to the Nation's Capital, Canberra, where I'm joined by the ALP Shadow Treasury spokesperson and federal Member for Rankin, Jim Chalmers. Jim Chalmers, good afternoon to you, Jim.
JIM CHALMERS, SHADOW TREASURER: Good afternoon to you, Steve.
AUSTIN: I know there's a lot happening, I'll come to Question Time in just a moment, but last Friday I broadcast some of Kevin Rudd, the former Prime Minister's speech to the Senate Committee looking at media ownership in Australia. And I'm just intrigued to know why federal Labor is fully supporting the coalition's News Media Bargaining Code legislation, which is currently before the Senate. Why are you guys fully behind what the coalition is doing?
CHALMERS: What we've said since the beginning, Steve, is that we want there to be a workable media code, which recognises that the journalists who write and create the news should be paid for it. That's the principle that we've supported. I think you and I have spoken about that a few times, but we have also, along the way, raised concerns. We have said there have been some issues around implementation. You’ll recall that in the original scheme, ABC and SBS were to be excluded, and I think we advocated for them to be included and that turned out to be the case, which is a good thing. But really, right throughout in the Senate Committee, in the House of Representatives, we've expressed some concerns about implementation. We’ve said that there's been some issues with the fact that this was supposed to be all sorted last year and it still isn't sorted now. But we've tried to be constructive and say the principle behind this is right. People are understandably furious with Facebook, about being denied access to the news in that way. And that jeopardised, at least initially, getting good health advice. So we understand that too. We want a workable code, we want the government to get it right. I don't think that any objective observer would say that they've landed it yet.
AUSTIN: Are you afraid of News Corp in Australia like Kevin Rudd said he was when he gave evidence to the Senate Committee on Friday?
CHALMERS: Well, I find you all scary, Steve!
AUSTIN: He was being serious. He made a major presentation to the Senate Committee on Friday and he said basically he was afraid of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation because they've got 70% domination of the Australian media, or 60%, I forget which it is, I’m sorry. Let’s say 60% domination of the media market here in Australia. Are you scared of them also?
CHALMERS: I watched a big chunk of Kevin's appearance at the committee. I wouldn't personally use exactly the same words, but I think his point about media diversity is broadly right. Which is, you want the media to be as diverse as possible. You want a high quality, diverse media that people can access. And I think his views on this are really well known. He is a critic of News Corp and in many ways he repeated that at the Senate Committee. The way I would describe my position is, I do think we need more diversity. I think a lack of diversity is a problem in any democracy. And so, we are worried about the hollowing out of other media institutions, like AAP and some of the other developments we've seen in recent times.
AUSTIN: News today seems to be that the federal Communications Minister has said there will not be a Royal Commission into media ownership in Australia. Is federal Labor happy or unhappy about that?
CHALMERS: Well, that's our position. We haven't been calling for the Royal Commission like Kevin has. No doubt, there have been members of the Labor Party have been part of those half a million or so that have signed his petition.
AUSTIN: The biggest ever in Australian parliamentary history, Jim Chalmers.
CHALMERS: Yeah, I'm not pretending it isn't, Steve. I guess our priority in media has been to see how we can make this media code better, to see what we can do to promote diversity. That's been the position of the Shadow Cabinet and you and I have talked about that before.
AUSTIN: Nineteen minutes to five, news at five. Jim Chalmers is the federal Labor Member for Rankin, and the Shadow Treasury spokesperson. I'll be speaking with a member of the LNP in Queensland tomorrow around the same time. In Question Time today in Canberra, Jim Chalmers, you went after the federal government over the JobMaker scheme and whether or not the current legislation allows for the sacking of more mature employees to replace them with younger, several younger, part-time workers. Why, what's your concern with the legislation?
CHALMERS: Well, there was a set of Freedom of Information documents that came out to the ABC actually, coincidentally, which was Treasury advice to the government saying that if an employer sacked a worker who's over 35, and replaced them with three part time workers under 35, then that employer could get more hours of labour at the same cost. And so we pointed out, as did the journalist who wrote this story, that that is an incentive not to hire workers, but to fire them, if you're over 35. And so our concern is that what's supposed to be JobMaker could be a JobTaker, particularly if you're over 35. And what we tried to do, when the legislation was working its way through the parliament here, is we moved an amendment to say that no worker over 35 could be sacked as part of this legislation. The government voted against that, now we know why. And that's because the intention of this, or one of the outcomes of this, is that we won’t just see workers over 35 left out and left behind, we're seeing them singled out and sacrificed. We don't want this legislation to be used in the worst way that it could be, which is as an incentive to fire people rather than an incentive to hire people
AUSTIN: Josh Frydenberg responded, quoting from the same documents, he claims, saying the hiring credits does not create an incentive for an employer to replace an older worker with several new part time workers. He said he was quoting from the same documents?
CHALMERS: I'm happy to clear that up, Steve, because, as always, he's not telling the full story. He's trying to pretend that we're saying that you get extra money for doing it. What we're saying is, you get extra hours for doing it. You can get, you know, 60 hours out of three workers, that you used to get for the same amount of money you're paying one worker for 40 hours. That's the incentive that we're talking about. That's what's in the Treasury documents. In fact, the sentence he's quoting is directly next to a table which proves that you, as an employer, if you punt someone over 35, you can get more hours at the same cost if you put three part-timers on. That will accelerate a worrying trend towards insecure work, but it also means for that worker, a not especially old worker by the way, you can be 36 or above and be treated this way. That would be devastating. And that's what this legislation encourages. We tried to fix it up. The government wasn't in the cart for that. And now, frankly, they're lying about the incentive which is still in that legislation.
AUSTIN: How would Labor fix it up, Jim Chalmers?
CHALMERS: Well, our amendment really said, let's make it so you can't fire a worker to replace them with these three younger workers. As part of the legislation, recognising that there is a challenge for younger workers in the economy, we don't want to see a lost generation emerge from this recession, people who you know we're in the insecure parts of the work workforce and couldn't get back into work as the economy recovered. We've said all along that there's a legitimate issue there, but this legislation, it leaves all of those workers over 35 out. It leaves them behind. In its worst version it singles out and sacrifices them. And so that's the part that needs fixing.
AUSTIN: Quarter to five, news at five. Jim Chalmers is the federal Labor Member for Rankin and the Shadow Treasury spokesman. Steve Austin's my name. This is ABC Radio Brisbane. Finally, part of the other thrust in Question Time today for Anthony Albanese as well, was debate about the status of independent contractors in food delivery, and in Uber-type scenarios. What would Labor change here, Jim Chalmers, can you say?
CHALMERS: Anthony Albanese made a really important speech, not far from where you're broadcasting from Steve, a couple of Wednesdays ago, about how we need to make work more secure, and better paid, and have fairer conditions. And as part of that, it's recognising that we've got this big issue with casualisation in our labour market, in our workforce. And that has flow-on consequences for whether or not people can get a home loan, or provide for their loved ones, and all the rest of it. So, what we're saying is, part of those I think eight or so announcements that Anthony made that night, was that we need to empower the Fair Work Commission to recognise where a relationship between an employer and someone working there, is much more like an employee. And we see that in the gig economy. And so our questions in Question Time today from Anthony, and Tony Burke, and others, was really going to this issue of whether or not it's reasonable to expect in Australia, that workers who are working incredibly hard, in often unsafe conditions, can get paid less than the minimum wage. And if so, what's the point of having a minimum wage?
AUSTIN: That's a good question! Did you get an answer to that question? What is the point of having a minimum wage if they're getting paid less than the minimum wage?
CHALMERS: I'm not verballing the Minister here, the Minister said that these issues are “complicated”. And it's complicated if you're working in a dangerous situation for not very much money and you can't provide for your family, and you can't be safe at work. I think there is a lot of concern in the community about this casualisation broadly, but how people are being treated in the gig economy. And, frankly, I think that if the gig economy doesn't work without people being employed in unsafe ways for very little money, then it doesn't work. And so we've said the Fair Work Commission's got a role to play here. There might be other consultation we can do to make things better for gig economy workers as well, because they’re a bigger and bigger part of our labour market. And they should be a bigger and bigger part of our thinking here. Our laws need to keep up with the change in our economy, and in this regard, they're not.
AUSTIN: Jim Chalmers, thank you.
CHALMERS: Thank you, Steve.
ENDS
