E&OE TRANSCRIPT
TELEVISION INTERVIEW
BUZZFEED OZPOL LIVE
WEDNESDAY, 9 MAY 2018
SUBJECT/S: 2018 Budget; Newstart; tampon tax; Katy Gallagher
ALICE WORKMAN: Welcome back to Parliament House. I am here with Labor's Shadow Finance Minister Jim Chalmers. But first, Jim I wanted to give some tweet reactions to what people think of the Budget. We've got one from Amy, she says "all of humanity lost in this one". Would you agree with that?
JIM CHALMERS, SHADOW MINISTER FOR FINANCE: (Laughs) Well, it's a good point that Amy makes.
WORKMAN: (Laughs) Eddie says "$49 million for a Captain Cook memorial at Botany Bay, $30 million to Foxtel for no real reason but a $84 million cutback to the ABC because 'everyone has to live within their means'." Scott Morrison's Budget in one tweet, what do you think?
CHALMERS: That's a pretty good point Eddie makes too. They've got billions of dollars coming through the door and still they thought that a really high priority was to take more than $80 million out of the ABC. I think that's probably not a warranted cut given what else is happening in the Budget.
WORKMAN: So does that mean that if Labor gets in at the next election, you'll put that money back into the ABC?
CHALMERS: To be determined, but they can take that money out without having to put it through the Parliament. We actually have no say in them taking that $80 million out of the ABC. We'll always have a better policy towards public broadcasting than the other guys will.
WORKMAN: Always? Full stop?
CHALMERS: Always, always.
WORKMAN: Is that because you appear on the ABC a lot?
CHALMERS: No, it's because public broadcasting's important.
WORKMAN: Let's quickly talk about the tax plan. Obviously Chris Bowen's come out this morning and said it's a hoax because it goes for seven years. So does that mean that Labor will not be supporting this Bill, or you want it to be cut up? What's your approach going to be?
CHALMERS: The point that Bowen was making, which was a good point, is that basically Malcolm Turnbull was saying "hey, Australian people, if you re-elect me two more times, I'll give you this tax cut in seven years' time". The point that Chris has made and other people have made - independent commentators have made - is we don't know where the Budget will be up to then. We don't know how the economy will be going then. It's a long way down the track. So what we said is we'll support the tax cuts which come into effect on 1 July this year, because they're geared towards low- and middle-income earners, and we'll consider all the other tax cuts in due course. We're not convinced yet and I think there's a lot of cynicism out there in the community because people kind of think, well you're promising me something seven years down the track. We don't know if you'll even be there to deliver it. The other thing coming out today is nobody can tell us how much those extra tax cuts cost. So I don't know about you, but if someone says to you "hey, do you want to sign up to this agreement?" and you say "well how much does it cost?", they say "we're not going to tell you", not many people would sign up to an agreement like that.
WORKMAN: But if they split the Bill in two, and so the lower- and middle-income tax cuts went and you passed that through the Senate, and then you win the next election because these cuts aren't going to come in until afterwards, does that mean that you'll change those tax plans, or you'll keep following through with them?
CHALMERS: We're still working through all of those kind of considerations, but it is true that if the Government puts the 1 July tax cuts into the Parliament, we'll pass them immediately. We've said that to them directly.
WORKMAN: Well they'll be introduced this morning.
CHALMERS: They're in the Parliament now, but they haven't been voted on yet. We're prepared to vote for them if they're separate to the other bits and pieces. I think it's a bit weird, frankly, for Scott Morrison and others to say "look, we will only give tax relief to low- and middle-income earners if you sign up to a tax cut seven years down the track for high-income earners". We don't think that, basically, battlers should be held hostage to a political strategy like that.
WORKMAN: Well let's talk about battlers, let's talk about Newstart. So Newstart hasn't been increased since 1994. There's obviously no indication that the Government will plan to do it any time soon.
CHALMERS: No.
WORKMAN: What will Labor do? Will Labor increase Newstart?
CHALMERS: We've said for a long time we don't think it's good enough. We think it acts as a bit of a deterrent to finding work because it is so low, and unlike some of these characters in the Government, we acknowledge it's very, very hard to live on $40 a day.
WORKMAN: Yeah, you don't think you can do it?
CHALMERS: I don't think I could do it. I think I'd find it very, very difficult. And frankly, I think that these other characters would find it very, very difficult too, but they're not prepared to 'fess up to it. We want to do a proper job of it. We said in the first term of a Labor Government we'd get to the bottom of it, we'd come up with some kind of announcement. From my point of view, I'm in the economic team, we've got to work out a way to pay for it, but we're certainly very sympathetic to the argument that says that if you're only giving $40 a day, it's hard to actually get yourself sorted to go and find a job, and we've been saying that for some time.
WORKMAN: So you agree it's too low. But if a Bill was introduced tomorrow, you wouldn't support it?
CHALMERS: A Bill introduced by?
WORKMAN: Private Member's Bill introduced tomorrow says we want to raise Newstart by $1700.
CHALMERS: We would rather do the job ourselves and do it properly.
WORKMAN: So you'd rather reject other people's Bills which would give more people money who you acknowledge need it?
CHALMERS: We've got a responsibility, we're actually the alternative Government of this country. Crossbenchers can put forward motions, whether it's in the Senate or the House, and we make a decision on those on their merits. But we actually have to implement what we say we'll do and so we want to get it right, and we want to make sure we'll pay for it. It is actually a big thing for us to acknowledge that we think that Newstart is too low and, yes there are people in the community and probably in the Senate who would like us to immediately commit to a bigger increase in Newstart. We want to be responsible about it and so we're not prepared to do that yet.
WORKMAN: Alright, well let me give you another real-world Senate example - the Greens have said they're going to introduce a Bill to scrap the tampon tax tomorrow. Labor have come out and said if you win the next election you will scrap it.
CHALMERS: Yeah.
WORKMAN: And you've got some other budgetary measures, but does that mean you won't support their moves to scrap it now and you'll wait until, hypothetically you win Government next year?
CHALMERS: We do have plans to scrap it. We've led on this, on scrapping the tampon tax. It's absolutely absurd and indefensible that we have effectively a tax on women, because tampons and pads are called non-essential health items. That is absolutely ridiculous. We've led on this and so we will actually act on it. We've got all of the Labor states to sign up to doing this. It's effectively something that requires the agreement of the states and territories because the GST is their tax. So a motion in the Senate...
WORKMAN: A Bill, a Private Member's Bill to repeal the tampon tax.
CHALMERS: Everybody knows that we want to do that. How we will react in the Senate...
WORKMAN: But you'll only do it on your terms. Is that what you're saying?
CHALMERS: It requires agreement of the states and territories. It requires a Federal Government to lead on it.
WORKMAN: But isn't that incongruous for you to say that you'll scrap it when you get in?
CHALMERS: (Laughs) You just wanted to say incongruous, didn't you?
WORKMAN: (Laughs)
CHALMERS: You did a very serious introduction at the start too, I noticed...
WORKMAN: OK Jim, we'll move on to something else that I'm sure you definitely will want to talk about. Senator Katy Gallagher's just been booted by the High Court. What is Labor going to do about the three MPs in the Lower House with question marks?
CHALMERS: We're considering our options now, and no doubt they'll be seeking advice and they'll be having conversations, but we are working through the implications of the judgement. It absolutely sucks that Katy's been kicked out of the Senate. She's one of the best colleagues that we have. So I'm very sad on a personal level that Katy won't be serving in the Senate in the near term. As for the implications for everybody else then you would understand that they would want to properly understand the judgement and what it means for people.
WORKMAN: Christian Porter said that he wants them to resign by the end of the day. Do you think that you'll make a decision that quickly?
CHALMERS: Look, it's up to the members. It's up to the members how quickly they want to work through...
WORKMAN: So are they getting the choice as to whether they resign or refer themselves?
CHALMERS: Other people are deciding that other than me, and other than Christian Porter, frankly. Christian Porter has leapt on this and done a big press conference and all of those sorts of things.
WORKMAN: That's because your leader did say last year that you had a flawless vetting system. Do you now concede that maybe your pre-selection process isn't as high and mighty as you guys made it out to be?
CHALMERS: Obviously the High Court has found that the process for Katy was insufficient. The High Court's found that. We don't necessarily agree with the judgement but we respect the decision of the court. Katy's already put out a statement that she's disappointed, but will cop it sweet. And I hope she has some role to play in the future as well, by the way. It's not really for us to determine. That has been our long-standing view. I've been through this, I've jumped through all the hoops that we have to jump through to be a candidate in the Labor Party and I think that the process is pretty stringent, but obviously in this case the High Court's got a different view.
WORKMAN: So you'll change the process to make sure this doesn't happen in the future?
CHALMERS: I'm sure that the party's thinking about those sorts of things, I don't spend my time working on those kinds of processes.
WORKMAN: Do you think there needs to be some other big picture change? Does the Government need to say we need constitutional change, maybe the AEC should get more powers to be able to vet candidates themselves, and be able to make sure people prove they're not duals before they nominate. Does something bigger need to happen? This is the 11th person booted out of Parliament. That's a lot of people.
CHALMERS: It is a lot of people and something has to give, whether that's the parties themselves having better processes, whether it's the AEC, I'm not convinced we need to make big wholesale changes. I think the fact this has happened has probably scared the parties into doing a better job. We thought we already had really good processes. Some of the other processes of some of the other parties - One Nation, for example, and others - was obviously far inferior to anything else. So there will be changes made, whether the changes are imposed on parties or parties do them themselves is really a matter for other people.
WORKMAN: But when do you think it reaches constitutional crisis? Because we've already got a by-election for the seat of Perth, and we're potentially facing up to three if the other Labor Lower House MPs step down - that's four by-elections. Is that constitutional crisis stage?
CHALMERS: As I understand it as well, Rebecca Sharkie's considering her options too.
WORKMAN: Five by-elections.
CHALMERS: So yeah, that would be a substantial amount of by-elections. I don't get into the language around constitutional crisis, all of that sort of stuff. There will be by-elections in a handful of seats to resolve this. In each of the examples that you mentioned, Justine and Susan and Josh, if they did have to go to a by-election - and that remains to be seen, but if they did - they're really good community people, and I think they'd be well supported.
WORKMAN: Well Susan actually has never renounced her British citizenship because of the complicated process with her family. If she resigned, could she even go to a by-election?
CHALMERS: I'm sure everything could be cleared up if that was the case. As you would imagine, in Budget week I spend almost all of my time in spreadsheets and tables, you know sixteen point four dash two; I don't spend a lot of time thinking about these issues. I'm sure Susan has spent a lot of time thinking about it.
WORKMAN: OK, well let me just ask you one more thing. Are you worried that there could be a voter backlash to the Labor Party given that you were so confident that you would survive the High Court and now Katy hasn't. Are you afraid that the voters could turn around and this could potentially lose you the next election?
CHALMERS: I don't think that's specific to the Labor Party. I think generally people just want this fixed and resolved. There's been Liberal members like John Alexander, there have been One Nation and there have been Greens, so I think people generally in the community don't think this is ideal and they'd rather we'd get beyond this and care about things like Newstart or tax policy or things that actually impact on their lives. It's not like we're drawing on a deep well of community love for politicians, and so I think generally people want to see it all fixed up. I don't think we'll wear a disproportionate amount of that.
WORKMAN: Is there anyone across the other side of the House you're looking at thinking they're a dual? Anyone in your mind's eye?
CHALMERS: There have been reports of Julia Banks in Chisholm and Jason Falinski and others. I haven't gone through their constitutional eligibility. I'm sure others have, particularly in your line of work, I'm sure people have gone through all of that. And if they're found to be under a cloud then they should be subject to the same kind of processes too.
WORKMAN: Jim Chalmers, thanks so much for joining us on BuzzFeed OzPol.
CHALMERS: Thanks, Alice.
ENDS
MEDIA CONTACT: NATHAN PAULL 0427 532 705
