Interview with Kieran Gilbert, Sunday Agenda, Sky News
KIERAN GILBERT:
On the Employment White Paper to be released tomorrow, Treasurer, is it largely an analytical piece or will there be some substantial policies in it, a game plan, how many policies if so?
JIM CHALMERS:
Good morning Kieran and welcome back. I'm really looking forward to releasing the Employment White Paper tomorrow. There will be a lot of analysis in it but the emphasis is on action – something like 70 policies already implemented, another 80 or so underway, but it will sketch out 31 future reform directions as well. And as part of all of that, there will be nine new policies. So some analysis but an emphasis on action. And what the Employment White Paper is all about is a more dynamic and more inclusive labour market in a country where our workers and our employers are beneficiaries of the big changes underway in our economy and our society. And so I think what people will see when we release the White Paper is really putting workers and employers front and centre, seeing how we can work together to create the kind of labour market where our people are the major beneficiaries of the big changes that are underway.
GILBERT:
So nine new policies to come tomorrow. Today, we've got a bit more flesh to the document before its announcement as well with the National Skills Passport. What sort of industries and workers will benefit most from such an initiative?
CHALMERS:
I think industries will benefit right across the board. This is a really consultative and collaborative effort, this Employment White Paper, and one of the fruits of that consultation and collaboration – and I pay tribute to Brendan O'Connor and Jason Clare who've done the work here – is a National Skills Passport, which is all about instilling a culture of lifelong learning and retraining and reskilling right through people's working lives. It's about making it easier for workers to progress and maintain their skills base and making it easier for employers to find the kinds of workers with the qualifications that they need to succeed. And so a win-win for workers and for businesses, this National Skills Passport is an important part, it's one of the nine new policies that people will see in the Employment White Paper, and something that has come from working really closely with workers and their unions, businesses and their peak organisations.
GILBERT:
I know there’s a bit of detail that you've released as well today in relation to the lack of gender pay equity, it's still a gulf in many sectors. How do you turn that around?
CHALMERS:
It's absolutely crucial that we turn that around, there has been some welcome progress. I pay tribute to Katy Gallagher and the whole cabinet, which has made women's economic participation really a central focus of our economic plan. And you'll see that in the Employment White Paper as well. We've made some progress but we've got more work to do on this front. And the best way to do that, in addition to making sure that we're lifting wages in industries dominated by women, is to make sure that we are dealing with the issues which are preventing the full participation of women in our workforce and in our economy. People will see a fair bit on that in the paper tomorrow.
GILBERT:
Is the government in broader terms on the same page as the RBA when it comes to what represents full employment. I know this can get very technical in terms of what level drives up inflation and so on. But the governor, the new governor, just a couple of months ago said unemployment needs to tick up to four and a half per cent. You've said maybe you don't agree with that assessment. Are you on the same page as the RBA when it comes to what represents full employment?
CHALMERS:
I think it's important not to try and find disagreement where it doesn't exist. What Michele Bullock was saying was that the Reserve Bank and indeed the Treasury expects unemployment to rise a little bit as a consequence of what's happening in the world and what's happened with interest rates, and that unemployment will rise a little bit in our expectation as inflation moderates in our economy. And so that's the point that Michele was making, what the Employment White Paper does, it doesn't contradict this kind of narrow, technical, necessary and important assumption, which people have about things like the NAIRU and all of these other technical terms that you mentioned, there is a role for that technical assumption that feeds our forecasts. But what I try and do in the White Paper is to say that the government's objective is in addition to those narrow technical assumptions. Our objective as a government is a good secure, fairly paid job for people who want one in a more dynamic and more inclusive labour market. So what people will see in the Employment White Paper is something which is complementary to some of those technical terms not in conflict with, but an important additional thing. Now the other thing which has been missed, I think in some of the commentary here, and one of the reasons I'm grateful you've asked me about is the reason why we can have a broad, government objective, which is about sustained and inclusive full employment sitting alongside these narrow technical assumptions is our goal is to drive the NAIRU down over time. We've seen it come down in recent years, the Treasury now says about four and a quarter per cent, we want to drive that down as low as possible. We want to get unemployment as low as we can, we want inflation to moderate. Those are our objectives. And I think when people see the actual paper rather than some of the commentary about it, they'll say that those objectives are in concert rather than in conflict.
GILBERT:
On the COVID inquiry, should the inquiry, the three representatives of it, look at the closure of state borders during COVID-19?
CHALMERS:
As you know, Kieran, and I think Andrew was bang on a moment ago, he said these issues are contentious. We don't pretend otherwise and there obviously hasn't been a unanimous view, about the best way forward here. But I'm really confident that the review that we have set up will be broad and comprehensive, and it will take into consideration all of those Commonwealth responsibilities. We've focused on the Commonwealth responsibilities because we're a government that takes responsibility for the things that are in our wheelhouse. And that's what the review is largely about. But also, and this goes directly to your question, there is nothing preventing the states and territories participating in this review. We've said that now for some time, for some days, since the review was announced. There's nothing preventing those issues being considered but our primary focus here is on Commonwealth responsibilities, learning the lessons from the past, so that we can do things better in the future, in anticipation that that won't be the last pandemic or the last crisis that we go through as a country.
GILBERT:
Your responsibility, as we all know, is the national Budget and economy, and nothing could be more central to that than state borders and the closure of them. Surely that's relevant, surely those states should be held accountable?
CHALMERS:
Obviously all of these kinds of considerations have economic implications, I'm not disputing that. The review will be broad, it will be comprehensive and it won't prevent the states from taking part. But the primary focus will be on those Commonwealth responsibilities and we take responsibility for those things that are in our area, and that's what this is about. But overall, mostly what it's about, the foundation of this, is we went through a lot as a country together, we anticipate that we'll have to go through difficult times in the future as well and so it's incumbent on us to learn the lessons and that's what we intend to do.
GILBERT:
Did the government choose this option because there's a sense people are over COVID, they want to move on? So you went for this light touch inquiry?
CHALMERS:
First of all, I don't accept the characterisation of it, your description of it. I think it will be broad and comprehensive, and when we weigh up all of the options, we work out the one that is most likely to give us the understanding that we need about the past in order to inform the future. That's what guided us here and I'm confident when people see the way that this review proceeds over the next 12 months or so that it will give people the answers that they're seeking.
GILBERT:
So it wasn't because the states didn't wouldn't agree to a terms of reference for a royal commission. That's not the reason here? You don't agree with the assessment but given it was such a huge shock to our nation, COVID, as has been described by many the largest since World War Two, to have a 12-month inquiry without the ability to bring witnesses in, compel them to appear, it does appear in my view, light on.
CHALMERS:
I'm confident that we will get all of the information that we need to learn the lessons from the past to inform the future. So that if and when Australians have to go through the kind of difficulties that they had to go through in recent years, that we've learned the lessons and we can do things even better in the future than we have in the recent past.
GILBERT:
The Final Budget Outcome, a surplus of more than $22 billion. Chris Richardson said the Budget came good despite our politicians, not because of them. Have you been lucky?
CHALMERS:
I like and respect Chris, but he's wrong on this occasion. Because when governments get an upward revision to revenue like we had and like governments of other persuasions have in the past, what matters is how responsibly you respond to that. And we've responded in the most responsible way possible. We've got the first surplus in 15 years at the same time as we're rolling out billions of dollars in cost-of-living help. And we've done that, because we've got savings in the Budget, we've made changes in revenue, and we've also shown remarkable spending restraint. And that's why we've got a surplus – if we used the same approach taken by our predecessors, we'd be nowhere near a surplus for the year just finished. And I think that's a really important point that Chris misses.
GILBERT:
So you've banked the windfall, and that is a choice governments make. But what's the plan for budget repair with the China slowdown happening and when the windfall doesn't eventuate?
CHALMERS:
I think China is a really important consideration here, as is the kind of lagging impact of these rate rises, which are in the system. One of the key reasons why we've got this surplus in the year just finished is we want to take the pressure off inflation when it's most acute, but we also want to rebuild the Budget and get it in much better nick for the global and domestic economic uncertainties that we confront together in the months and years ahead. But the pressures on the Budget are intensifying rather than easing, we've been up‑front about that. We require ongoing work, there are $40 billion worth of savings in the Budget, we are taking a responsible approach, and that's because there is always a premium on responsible economic management, but particularly in these difficult global economic circumstances that we confront.
GILBERT:
On a couple of other matters before I let you go. Qantas, the national carrier, has copped a lot of brand damage in recent months, incredible damage to the airline, and its image publicly. You've seen Joyce go, should the chairman, Goyder, follow him?
CHALMERS:
That's ultimately a matter for Qantas. But I think Qantas has a lot of work to do, to restore trust and restore faith with their customers, and I think also with the country at large. The new CEO, Vanessa Hudson, has acknowledged that Qantas has got a lot of work to do to regain that trust, and I think that should be the overwhelming focus of that company.
GILBERT:
Given the drama around the airline, would the federal government have taken a different view when it comes to that Qatar decision, because many people see it as protecting Qantas. But given their behaviour, would the government have acted differently?
CHALMERS:
I'm not going to go into the kind of the hypotheticals or second guess decisions taken by ministers. The international travel scene in Australia is actually expanding and that's a good thing. Tourism has been a big part of keeping our economy growing in recent months, we're seeing international capacity expand, that's a good thing. We're seeing tourists return in big numbers, that's also a good thing. From time to time, there are decisions taken about individual bids – that happened under the former government and under this government, it's not especially unusual.
GILBERT:
And finally, on the Voice you told a group of multicultural communities yesterday that the Voice can be a unifying moment. But have you thought about the day after the referendum if this whole thing fails and fails terribly?
CHALMERS:
I think it's incumbent on all of us who want to grasp this generational opportunity to recognise First Nations people in our constitution and listen better and get better outcomes, that when we wake up the day after the referendum, we don't wish that we had done more. This is a big chance for Australia and Australians have got a really important choice to make: better outcomes or more of the same failures, bringing people together or leaving people behind. And they get an opportunity to kind of rise above the misinformation and the scare campaigns, which have been pushed around by parts of the no campaign. This is Australia's big chance to listen better and to get better outcomes, to recognise that how we've been doing things so far hasn't been working. There are too many failures in this part of policy, and the best way to turn this around is to make policy with people, rather than for people. And that's what listening is all about, and that's what the Voice is all about.
GILBERT:
Treasurer, thanks for your time and congrats on a couple of big wins for the Brisbane football teams last night. We'll talk to you soon.
