PATRICIA KARVELAS:

The Prime Minister has praised attendees of the Jobs and Skills Summit for coming to Canberra with open minds but it's unclear how long this spirit of cooperation will last. Migration will top today's agenda and it's widely tipped the Government will increase the cap on skilled migration visas. While there is broad agreement on raising the cap, the unions and business are at odds on a number of other points ‑ the main one being multi‑employer bargaining. Joining me this morning is the Treasurer Jim Chalmers. Jim Chalmers, welcome to the program.

JIM CHALMERS:

Thanks very much, Patricia.

KARVELAS:

Business chiefs have urged you to rule out what they say is the alarming prospect of industry‑wide strikes. Jacqui Lambie who I just spoke to is a key vote in the Senate. She says she's also worried about seeing the emergence of this kind of strike action. Will you rule out laws that will allow that to happen?

CHALMERS:

Our purpose here and our objective is not more conflict in industrial relations, it's more agreement. And that objective is broadly shared across unions and businesses. Obviously, enterprise bargaining is not delivering the kind of strong and sustainable wages growth that we want to see in our economy and so something's got to change. And there are elements of business that do support multi‑employer bargaining and there are large swathes of business that support our efforts to simplify and make fairer and more flexible the better off overall test. And so there's something in this for everybody when it comes to improving our industrial relations. But most importantly, this is about getting wages moving again after a decade of stagnation.

KARVELAS:

But on this question I asked ‑ industry‑wide strikes, will you ensure that the laws don't allow that to happen?

CHALMERS:

The laws will be put together with consultation with all of the affected groups and all the interested parties. Tony Burke flagged that yesterday that that consultation begins more or less immediately and there's been a heap to this point as well. But the point that I'm making in response to your question is ‑ we're not trying to make it easier for there to be conflict in the industrial relations system, we want to make it easier for there to be agreement. And that's the tone of the Summit, that's the tone that we want to see in our industrial relations as well. And I think that there is an appetite across the board to see where we can work together to make the system work for workers and for employers at the same time.

KARVELAS:

Yeah, I think there is an appetite for sure and we've seen lots of cooperation. I'm certainly not trying to insert conflict but there is quite obviously a red line as described by the Australian Industry Group when it comes to this idea. I think the Australian Financial Review is describing it today as pattern bargaining, this idea of, you know, across the industries. So given you are alive to the fact that that would create potentially more conflict, would you close that down now?

CHALMERS:

The final design of the laws is a matter for Tony Burke working closely with all of the stakeholders and he's flagged his willingness to do that. That will begin more or less immediately. I have a lot of respect for Innes Willox and the Australian Industry Group and I listen respectfully to his views but I don't share his view about the outcome of moving forward together when it comes to multi‑employer bargaining and simplifying other aspects of the bargaining system. I think it gives us a chance to get wages growing in a way that seeks more agreement, more effective agreements which work for everyone rather than either the existing system which isn't getting wages growing again, or some of the alternatives.

KARVELAS:

Okay, but will you build into that system the right to strike across workplaces? That's a key component if you allow workers to come together in that kind of way, the inevitable consequence isn't it that they'll also be able to strike across those workplaces?

CHALMERS:

All industrial relations systems in the free world have got some element of industrial action in them, including ours and countries with which we compare ourselves. And there is a right balance to be struck there to make sure that workers can make their voices heard in a way that works for the broader national economy. Tony's job, working with Innes and with others ‑ business, employer groups, with unions, with other interested parties ‑ is to make sure that we strike that right balance so we can satisfy our main objective which is to get wages growing in a strong and sustainable way again.

KARVELAS:

And will that be one of your KPIs, so to speak, that there isn't an increase in industrial action as a result of any law changes?

CHALMERS:

We don't want to see more industrial action. I think that's self‑evident in all of my answers. Everything I've said about industrial relations is about trying to see where we can get more agreement, not more conflict. And so obviously, we want to see as little conflict as we can, we want to see workers and employers going forward together.

One of the things that we desperately want to do, one of the defining instincts and motivations of this Jobs Summit is to try and work out how we can reattach our national economic success with people's ability to work hard and actually get ahead and feed their loved ones. And for too long, we've had a government which has sought a deliberate policy of wage stagnation and wage suppression. We take a different view and we know that we need to work with employers and unions and others to make that a reality.

KARVELAS:

Economist Ross Garnaut has revived imposing a mining tax to spread high resources profits to workers, instead of increasing wages through labour market interventions. Will you take up that approach?

CHALMERS:

On wages, I think we've made our view pretty clear on that ‑ not just in industrial relations, but in terms of training people for higher wage opportunities, reforming childcare, so people can work more and earn more if they want to. So we do have a policy, a deliberate policy, a policy that we're proud of to get wages moving again. We don't have a policy for a mining tax. But again, it would be strange to have a Jobs Summit where we invited a whole bunch of people and then gave them a list of things that they were allowed to talk about and that had to accord with the Government's policy agenda.

KARVELAS:

No, I think it would be very alarming to have you rule out Ross Garnaut being able to raise a prospect, but it raises a good question about tax reform and your appetite for it. Are you prepared to consider such an idea? I know Labor's quite burnt, and in fact, you were a staffer at the time when the mining tax was, of course, fought tooth and nail, and was problematic for Labor. Times have changed, do you think because times have changed it's worth revisiting?

CHALMERS:

Times have changed, and our focus has changed as well. And we've got an ambitious multinational tax agenda, which is all about reforming multinational taxes so that countries pay a fair share of tax in the countries where they make their profits, so that we can fund hospitals and schools and education and all of our national priorities. And we do have a tax reform agenda. It is about company taxes in the multinational realm, and we're working hard at the moment to implement those policies. We've got a discussion paper out there right now. We don't propose to go down the path that Ross has raised. But we listen respectfully, whether it's Ross or others who've got a view about the tax system or about the economy more broadly. The tone that we have in our Government from Anthony Albanese, right down, excuse me, is to listen respectfully, to proceed where there's areas of common ground and listen respectfully, where there may not be, and there's not on that front.

KARVELAS:

Okay, so on this on this one, you're not even going to contemplate it?

CHALMERS:

We've got our own agenda on multinational taxes, and that's what we're promising.

KARVELAS:

But you could add to that agenda. You could keep that and do some other things too. You're ruling it out?

CHALMERS:

We're not proposing to go down the path that Ross described last night. But that wasn't the only element of his speech. Ross is a person of great standing, as you know, in the economic community in particular, there will inevitably be some things that we agree with and some things that we don't, we're not proposing to go down that path.

KARVELAS:

Migration is a key topic on the agenda today, and I know you heard Clare O'Neil speak earlier ‑ she is of course the Home Affairs Minister. The ACTU and the Business Council of Australia have agreed to the permanent migration cap being lifted. Is it going to be 200,000? Can you tell us?

CHALMERS:

That'll be a matter for the discussion today. I listened to that absolutely outstanding interview that you had with Clare O'Neil earlier this morning, and I think she put it exactly right. We are up for a more sensible migration setting. We are prepared to lift that cap, but cautiously, and not in isolation from all of the other things that we need to get right at the same time. Skilling up as a first priority, getting more people into the workforce, excluded Australians into the workforce, will be another key consideration today under Amanda Rishworth's leadership too. Those are our priorities. But part of it is lifting that migration cap, the final number will be a matter for Clare to nut out with her relevant stakeholders in her discussions, throughout the course of today. But there is a role there for lifting the cap cautiously, but not in isolation, and not as a substitute for some of the other things that we need to do.

KARVELAS:

We heard over and over yesterday that the key to unlocking women's participation in the workforce is access to affordable early education. You have said in fact, on this program, the subsidy increase will not be brought forward to January, but some groups are still lobbying for it to happen. Is that 100% not going to happen?

CHALMERS:

No, we'll be implementing our game‑changing investment in childcare, costs around $5 billion, and budgeted for in the October Budget to come in at the beginning of July. But again, the people who are putting that forward, Patricia, are doing so with the absolute best intentions and best motivations. And I've met with a number of people who've got that view. As I said here on the program last week, which sort of kicked off a lot of this discussion, I said that we had looked at it, and that the cost was going to be prohibitive. But we need to remember here, we need to have our eyes on the prize here. In that discussion yesterday, there was full throated support for our agenda. When it comes to childcare, it will be a game‑changer for Australian parents, and particularly for Australian mums. It will provide cost of living relief, and an economic dividend at the same time ‑ and we're really proud of it. And we can talk about the difference between bringing it in on the first of January or the first of July. But it will come in next year, and when it does, it will make an enormous difference.

KARVELAS:

I think so too, but there's something that doesn't sit comfortably with me intellectually about the argument you're making. So just explain it to me, right? This bit ‑ you keep saying the cost, the cost, if we brought it forward, but you keep also telling us that the cost is absolutely worth, putting your investment in, because of the dividend you get in terms of high taxation that women pay because they enter the workforce. How can you argue both?

CHALMERS:

It will make a big difference when it comes in, in July.

KARVELAS:

So then it's not a cost if you brought it forward to January?

CHALMERS:

Well it is in the Budget. It's not how the budget works, you can't, you can't kind of include in the budget, all of the broader economic benefits that you want, that you expect to see from the investment. It's just a reality of how budgets are made. I'm not going to go all spreadsheet on you at 10 to 8 in the morning, but it's not how budgets work. I welcome a conversation about our childcare policy because I'm really proud of it. It's the biggest on‑budget commitment that we're making, it will be a centrepiece of the October Budget, and I would happily talk about it all day, because it's going to be so important. But we need to remember, we're talking about it coming in ‑ the day it comes in next year. I'd love to focus on what it will mean for our people, particularly for Australian mums and dads, and the benefits that it will bring our economy. I welcome people's views about the ideal start date, I'm just being up‑front with people, that when you inherit a budget with a trillion dollars of debt, you've got to weigh up your priorities, and it will be terrific when it comes in in July.

KARVELAS:

Another one where there was a lot of consensus, is 26 weeks of paid parental leave being paid for by the Commonwealth. Can you do it in this Budget? Or can you do it in this term of a Labor Government?

CHALMERS:

I would love to do it, Patricia, if I can find a way to pay for it, this is one of the things that I would love to be able to do. I would love to pay the superannuation guarantee on paid parental leave. There are a heap of great ideas.

KARVELAS:

And would you like to be able to do it in the next term, in the first term of the Labor Government?

CHALMERS:

It genuinely depends on the budget circumstances. I welcome a discussion about all of these great ideas, I genuinely do, and the Jobs Summit has thrown up some terrific ideas. But there are some instances where you've got to weigh things up against other priorities. And as it stands right now, it will be hard to make it work in October. But, if and when the circumstances permit, and the budget makes it possible there are some of these ideas that I would love to pick up and run with.

KARVELAS:

In this term?

CHALMERS:

Well, depends on the budget.

KARVELAS:

Okay, let me let me ask the same question asked to Katy Gallagher because it's unfair for me to target her and not you ‑ and that's on whether it sits comfortably with you, that the stage three tax cuts disproportionately go to men then, when you're talking about doing all these wonderful things for women?

CHALMERS:

I think that we need to do more to invest in Australian women, particularly in the economic potential and economic participation, and equal opportunity of Australian women. I think, really the main theme that emerged from yesterday at the Jobs and Skills Summit, which a lot of people have remarked on, in welcome ways, is that we want to place women at the centre of our economic plan and our economic efforts. And those tax cuts don't come in for another couple of years now.

KARVELAS:

I keep hearing that, I'm very intrigued by this couple of years line from your Government, because it's one that you're all using. What are you trying to suggest to us? There's a couple of years. Well, what can we do in those couple of years? Are you just asking people to lobby you to dump them?

CHALMERS:

No, I'm asking people to understand that we've got some nearer‑term challenges that we're dealing with. I am working more or less around the clock right now, on some of these challenges in our labour market, in particular, one of which is women's participation in the labour market. Trying to close that gender gap to the extent that we can, working closely with Katy Gallagher and other colleagues on that. The point that we make about the two years, is simply that we've got a huge agenda right now. And Clare O'Neil did a great job of outlining parts of that earlier on your show as well. We've got some big pressing near‑term challenges. They're our focus right now, particularly in the labour market, particularly when it comes to the cost of living. Particularly when it comes to the fact that real wages are falling ‑ those are our priorities. The tax cuts that people are very interested in, no matter what we did with them, wouldn't change the reality that we confront right now and for the next couple of years.

KARVELAS:

Treasurer. Thank you so much for joining us and good luck today.

CHALMERS:

Thanks for your time, Patricia.