JIM CHALMERS MP
SHADOW TREASURER
MEMBER FOR RANKIN

SENATOR KATY GALLAGHER
SHADOW MINISTER FOR FINANCE
SHADOW MINISTER FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE
SENATOR FOR THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

 

E&OE TRANSCRIPT
DOORSTOP INTERVIEW
PARLIAMENT HOUSE, CANBERRA
TUESDAY, 11 MAY 2021

SUBJECT: Federal Budget.

JIM CHALMERS, SHADOW TREASURER: In the Budget tonight we'll see a deficit of delivery, a deficit of credibility and a deficit of vision. 

This can't just be another political con job, long on announcements and short on delivery.

In terms of that gap between what the Government announces and what they actually deliver, if the first seven Budgets of this Government are any guide, the eighth Budget won't be worth the paper it's written on. 

Time and time again, in these Budgets, we've seen big promises made, and big failures follow. 

It can't be another Budget of over-promising and underdelivering, like the first seven were. 

This is a Government, which is eight-years-old, at the next election they'll be asking for twelve years. In that time they've made childcare, and aged care, and stagnant wages worse, not better. The Government wants the Australian people to believe, all of a sudden, that they care about jobs. They care about childcare. They care about aged care. But in the eight long years they've been in office their cuts to aged care, their inability to deal with childcare, and their deliberate attempts to put downward pressure on wages, have had genuine, tangible costs and consequences for the Australian people. This Government doesn't have any problem generating headlines, they do have a big problem generating secure, well-paid jobs for Australians. There are two million Australians who still can't find work or enough hours to support their loved ones. 

What we'll see tonight is a lot of spin, a lot of marketing, a lot of announcements, but what we know from eight long years of this Government is that they're good at announcements but bad at delivery. Good at generating headlines, bad at generating jobs. This Budget tonight will be all about getting the Morison Government back into office and not about getting Australians back into secure, well-paid jobs that they can feed their families on. 

The economy is recovering and that is a good thing. We want to see the economy recover strongly, and broadly, and in a sustainable way. We want there to be more jobs, and more opportunities, for more Australians, but just because the recession could have been worse, doesn't mean that the recovery couldn't be better. The recovery in the economy would be stronger were it not for Scott Morrison's vaccinations debacle, or his failures on quarantine, or the mismanagement of the China relationship. There are a range of issues here which have been festering in the economy and in the budget for eight long years. The idea that the Government, all of a sudden at their eighth attempt, will make up for the failures of their first seven Budgets, doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Katy's going to say a few words and then happy to take your questions. 

KATY GALLAGHER, SHADOW MINISTER FOR FINANCE: Thanks, Jim. Hi everyone. This Budget continues us on the path to rack up a trillion-dollars in debt, that's on the nation's credit card and yet, what have we got to show for it? We've got a vaccination programme that's months behind where it should be. We've got borders closed to our citizens. We've got a quarantine system that's not fit for purpose. We've got significant areas of need in the Budget, where this Government has made cuts, year after year, and in their Budgets, denying people essential services. And this is the Government that lectured all of us, when debt was a quarter of what it is today. We've now got a trillion dollars on the credit card, a political fix from this Government. We've got a Budget weighed down with waste, with companies that got billions of dollars in JobKeeper and returned a profit, and this Government seemingly not caring about it after they've pursued Robodebt victims often into very, you know, often sometimes to death. We've got land rorts, we've got these slush funds that exist in the Budget, billions of dollars in slush funds that the Government doled out as they head towards an election. Ministers deciding where taxpayers funds should go based on political convenience not actually what the community needs. 

We hear in this Budget that one of the favourite slush-funds, the Building Better Regions Fund, is going to be actually topped-up with a quarter-of-a-billion-dollars more in new spending. This is the Government that has no shame about that. They have no pretence that they're doing the right thing as they throw money, rivers of gold, into electorates they either want to win or they want to reward sitting Members, whilst denying other parts of the country their fair share of public funds. 

So this is a test for the Government. When they're going to rack up this much money on the credit card, how are they going to make sure it actually delivers a return for the Australian people. How are they going to fix an aged care system that is on its knees at the moment, where elderly Australians don't get the care they need, in the place they need, at the time they need. A childcare system that's not fit for purpose, that means women aren't allowed to work or are unable to work the hours they want to work, on the days they want to work. A mental health system that's had cuts, after cuts, after cuts, and a report that the Government's been sitting on for months. All of these areas are the areas that warranted attention over the last eight years, not just the year leading into the next election. 

We will be watching every single dollar spent by this Government because we know how much is going in jobs to mates, is going in rorts, is going in pork-barrelling. Now's not the time for that. Now's the time to deal with the genuine issues facing this country, to map out a plan about how they're going to fix quarantine and vaccinations, and make sure the country's recovery is the best it can be, not a political fix for the Morrison Government.

JOURNALIST: It looks like the Treasurer is going to extend the Low and Middle Income Tax Offset. Do you think it's time that that's just made a permanent feature of the tax system, as a lot of Australians just expect that that's what they're going to get?

CHALMERS: He's already announced a few times in the last few weeks that he will be extending the Low and Middle Income Tax Offset. I think that Australians understand in the Budget that Josh Frydenberg wants tax cuts for the highest income earners to be permanent, but tax cuts for low and middle income earners to be temporary. That's one of the things that will be a feature of the Budget tonight, the temporary extension of that tax offset for low and middle income earners. We've said all along that the priority for tax relief should be the people who need it most and who are most likely to spend it in the economy. Tax breaks for middle Australia and for low income earners are a good thing. It made no sense for the Government to commit tens-of-billions of dollars in tax cuts for the very highest income earners, years down the track, without knowing what the Budget and the economy would look like. This Government has racked up a trillion dollars in debt and they don't have enough to show for it. They've got these tax cuts baked into the system. We'll make our view known about them closer to the date, but the priority for tax relief needs to be people on low and middle incomes. I think it says everything about this Government that if you're on a modest income you get a temporary tax cut, if you're on the highest income you get a permanent one.

JOURNALIST: There's been an improvement to the Budget's bottom line. What would you put that down to?

CHALMERS: Well, the Budget is recovering for a range of reasons. The iron ore price is substantially higher, some multiples of what the Government assumed, so they got their forecasts wrong there. But obviously as well, as the economy recovers from the deepest, most damaging recession in almost a century the Budget will recover as well when it comes to income taxes and social security payments. So the Budget is improving in predictable ways and in some instances the improvement in the Budget has absolutely nothing to do with the Government when it comes to those commodity prices that we're getting. We want the Budget to recover strongly. We want the trillion dollars in debt to actually mean something in terms of jobs and opportunities for people around Australia. The Budget would be in much better nick if it wasn't riddled with rots and weighed down with the waste that Katy ran through a moment ago.

JOURNALIST: The Government's denied that the additional spending we're seeing on women in this Budget has been prompted by the rape allegation made by Brittany Higgins earlier this year. It's a pretty strong allegation the Opposition Leader made this morning. Are you happy to back it?

GALLAGHER: Sorry, can you just repeat the question?

JOURNALIST: The Finance Minister has denied that the extra spending on women in this budget has been prompted by the rape allegation made by Brittany Higgins earlier this year. The Opposition Leader made that allegation this morning. Are you happy backing that?

GALLAGHER: Do you honestly think the Morrison Government would have had a women's package if it wasn't for the pressure they've been under in the past three months? I mean, in last year's Budget we were told that women were lucky because they built an extra lane on the Barton Highway. That was their women's package. They've been under enormous pressure, they've been cutting services in domestic violence and family violence, and community legal centres - all services that women experiencing violence need. They've been cutting that year-on-year, and then we've got this magical women's package now. And you tell me the two things aren't linked? Of course they're linked. We had the Prime Minister saying he didn't even know that the gender pay gap was a problem until he found out about it this year. I mean, seriously. Of course it's linked. 

The money is welcome, right, let's get on and fix it, let's get on and make sure women get the support they need, particularly if they're escaping domestic violence. But what's the Government's response to the fastest growing group of people entering poverty in this country, women over the age of fifty-five? What's the housing solution for them? There's a whole area of need, which I don't imagine the Government will go near, but the money is welcome if it goes to the right places. But of course the two things are linked. There is no other explanation for this sort of sudden, I mean, acknowledgement, that women in this country are often on the backfoot, whether it comes to access to financial security, or access to social services, or even access to childcare. Those are all issues that face all of us as women every day. The Prime Minister is a bit late to the party. We'll wait and see the detail, to see whether it's actually exactly what we need and whether it'll go far enough. The money is welcome. But, of course, the two things are linked.

JOURNALIST: Senator, in terms of the women's package, women's health, for example, people are pointing out the upgrade to the War Memorial has received more money than what Women's Health is receiving. So what do you make about the quantity of money that's been put forward for women's issues?

GALLAGHER: Sure. Well, again, I mean it's hard to say, we're going on the drops the Government is giving. Let's have a look at the detail of them. And you can always compare, I think, allocations in a Budget, but this has been an area of neglect for this Government. Along with aged care, and childcare, and all the essential services that make a difference to people on the ground, they have failed to acknowledge the serious issues facing women in this country, year on year. It's eight years of ignoring this, you know, and now we've got this sudden epiphany as we're heading towards an election, and we've been under a bit of pressure from angry women around the country, that we've got to come back a little bit and throw a little bit this way, make a headline, try and get a bit of attention, to say, you know, women we really are listening to you. But there's serious, year on year damage that's been done to the women sector. That can't be repaired by a press release and the Prime Minister saying we're going to fix it now. Anyone who works in the women's sector knows the issues, knows how ingrained they are, and knows how much this Government has been ignoring it for years. So, let's see the detail. Let's see, you know, we're not going to begrudge those services on the ground any support they need. My feeling is, it will be a little too little, and a little too late.

JOURNALIST: Aged care, we've seen reports the sector could get as much as $17 billion. Obviously, we don't see the detail, I know. On the face of it though, what's your response to that kind of figure?

CHALMERS: Well, Sarah, in this area in particular, we need to wait and see what the Budget actually says. On Sunday, in the same day, the Treasurer said it was going to be $10 billion dollars a year, and then it was going to be $10 billion over the forward estimates, and then the drop to The Australian the next day was $17 billion. And so who knows what they're planning to commit, we'll know before long. Aged care has been an area of stunning neglect of this Government. We have a disgraceful aged care system, characterised by maggots in wounds and people going under-fed and malnourished. If the Government truly cared about the mess that is aged care in this country, they would have done something about it now. 

When Scott Morrison was Treasurer he bragged about the cuts that he was making from aged care. Those cuts have had consequences. This government's had eight years to deal with the problems in aged care. The idea that after neglecting aged care for seven Budgets, all of a sudden they're going to get it perfectly right in the Budget, I think is fanciful. We want to see proper action taken on aged care. We want to see the recommendations of the Royal Commission taken seriously. We will assess what the Government proposes tonight in that light.

JOURNALIST: Jim, the Treasury said that the Budget will be based on assumptions around not only borders reopening but the vaccine rollout as well. Considering that, I guess a number of the vaccine's previous targets have been missed, would you be concerned such a key assumption under the Budget is also such an uncertain one?

CHALMERS: The budget has to come clean on the costs and consequences of the Prime Minister's vaccinations debacle. In the last Budget, there was a scenario that said if we get the vaccinations away quicker, there'll be a multi-billion-dollar benefit for the economy. Well, if that was the case on the upside, we need to know tonight what's the case on the downside. The Prime Minister has stuffed-up the vaccinations rollout, just like he stuffed-up quarantine as well. That has costs and consequences for the economy. We need to know exactly what that looks like. The Government needs to come clean. Clearly, there are costs and consequences of getting the vaccination roll out so horribly wrong. Let's see what they are.

JOURNALIST: The Budget's expected to show the NDIS, the cost of the NDIS, is topping $30 billion and could potentially overtake Medicare. How significant are the sustainability issues with the NDIS?

CHALMERS: The NDIS is obviously a very important investment and clearly there's a lot of money outlayed there. We want to make sure that that money is effective. There's two questions here. The total amount of spending on the NDIS is is important, but also making sure that the money goes to the right places in effective ways so Australians with a disability get the care that they need and deserve. For eight long years now this Government has tried to undermine and diminish the NDIS for political reasons. They played politics with it from the beginning. They've underspent on it. They've tried to chip away at it. It's a proud Labor creation, we don't want to see it undermined, not just because of the usual ideological differences that we have with the Government, they're not typically that interested in looking after the disadvantaged in this country, but because there is a really important job for the NDIS to do. We need to get that money out the door. It's not a cheap program, and nor should it be, because Australians need and deserve that level of care. Thanks very much.

ENDS