JIM CHALMERS MP
SHADOW TREASURER
MEMBER FOR RANKIN
E&OE TRANSCRIPT
TELEVISION INTERVIEW
NATIONAL PRESS CLUB – Q&A
WEDNESDAY, 19 MAY 2021
SUBJECTS: Morrison Government’s record low wages growth; Real wages cut in Budget; Unemployment and underemployment; Low and middle income earners receive temporary tax relief before the election and a tax increase after the election; Stage 3 tax cuts; Budget repair; Airforce Space Division; Morrison Government’s failures on quarantine and vaccines; China trade tensions; Growth assumptions; Government-funded gas-fired power station; Prime Minister’s confusion about Wellcamp quarantine proposal; Tax review; Land tax and stamp duty; Fiscal policy; Multinational taxes; Election debates.
LAURA TINGLE, HOST: Thanks, Jim. The Budget discussion went very quickly to wages and you've also talked about the very sharp fall off in growth after the current Budget, the forthcoming Budget year, and Labor's commitment to doing something about real wages and the role of fiscal policy in that - so my question is, can you see or would you anticipate that Labor would be looking at widespread interventions in wage cases to actually lead to an increase in real wages across the board? And do you think we could also see almost a revival of wage tax trade-offs, repurposing what you've called the baked-in tax cut for higher income earners to lower income earners, getting tax cuts in instead of real wages growth?
JIM CHALMERS, SHADOW TREASURER: There's a lot in that, Laura. I think, in terms of intervening in wages cases, I think that's an important part of the story, particularly in minimum wage cases, and we'd make our submissions in the usual way. But I guess what I'm trying to say about wages is we have to attack these stagnant wages on a number of different fronts. Wage cases have a role to play. Clearly, getting the unemployment rate closer to full employment will put some pressure on wages. But we need to deal with underemployment and we need to deal with those structural issues as well. I think one of the reasons why this Government over the last eight long years of being in office has failed on wages, is because they haven't looked right across the board at what might be done - in terms of childcare, in terms of training, in terms of giving people the capacity to adapt and adopt new technology to their work, in communities like mine with long term unemployment and that cascading and concentrated disadvantage which often prevents people from grabbing opportunities to work. Really, right across the board, there's an opportunity here and an opportunity missed unfortunately in the Budget, to do something about these stagnant wages across a whole range of fronts. The interaction between wages, and tax, and tax cuts is obviously crucial too. And the Government wants to talk about this temporary tax relief that they're giving for low and middle income earners, which ends almost immediately after the next election. The issues in wages are going on for all four years of the Budget. And I think if the Government genuinely cared about the cost of living or taking some of the pressure off families, they wouldn't be so satisfied with themselves, even though the Budget delivers that cut in real wages over the next four years. We have supported all along tax relief for workers on modest incomes, we've said that since the beginning, and we've done that in the parliament as well. Our issue is with the mismatch between the temporary nature of the low and middle income tax relief versus the permanent nature of the Stage 3 tax cuts, which were committed by the Government on the assumption that they'd be in surplus by now and something like $300 billion of debt ago. And so I think it's right and responsible that we have a look at those tax cuts in that light.
PHIL COOREY, AFR: Mr Chalmers, Phil Coorey, from the AFR. Just on that, the Prime Minister made his views on tax increases fairly clear earlier this week, this is in so far as whoever wins the next election is going to have to focus at some stage on Budget repair. He talks about economic growth and spending restraint. What would be your philosophy to tackle debt and deficit should you win the next election, can you responsibly rule out revenue increases, tax increases as part of that?
CHALMERS: Thanks, Phil. First, on his comments about tax, what we need to understand is that everyone on incomes below $88,000 will be worse off under the Prime Minister's Stage 3 compared to what they're under with the Low and Middle Income Tax Offset. That's something like seven in every ten Australian workers will be paying more tax as a consequence of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer's tax policy, when you combine those two things, so what he says about tax let's take with a grain of salt. In relation to our relative fiscal strategy. I've been very interested the last few days to read and hear from, including in your paper, comments from Ken Henry and from Steven Kennedy. I've worked with both of those guys. I've got a mountain of respect for them and for their views on the economy and their views on the Budget. And they've made what I think is an important but obvious point - that a Government of either persuasion at some future point will need to focus on Budget repair. And I think the conversation is rightly focused on three ways you can go about that - grow the economy, spending restraint or spending cuts, and changes to the tax system. And if you take those in turn, in terms of growing the economy fast enough to make debt a shrinking proportion of the economy, the Government's own Budget papers say that we're going to go back to below trend growth. So they're failing on that measure. When it comes to spending restraint, we think we can spend more effectively. Katy and I think we can wind back some of these rorts and waste and mismanagement that characterises the Budget - the 21 slush funds and all the rest of it. We think there is opportunity for more restraint in those areas. And there will be opportunities for a Government of either persuasion to reform the tax system. Clearly, when you look at international developments on multinational tax and the leadership shown by President Biden, Andrew, and I, and Katy, and the team, we obviously follow those developments very closely and there might be opportunities to make the tax system fairer as well.
The difference between us on Budget repair and the Government on Budget repair is we know because of the form they showed in 2014 that they will ask the most vulnerable people in our country to carry the can for their Budget failures, and we won't go down that path. One of the reasons why the Treasurer and the Prime Minister are so coy about Budget repair is because they know, and we know, and I suspect you know, that if they get through the election it will be 2014 all over again and the most vulnerable people will be asked to carry the heaviest burden.
ANNA HENDERSON, SBS: Thank you, Anna Henderson, from SBS World News. Just obviously there's a lot of issues here on Earth you're talking about today but this morning Defence announced a Space Division in the Airforce and over the next ten years there'll be $7 billion of investment in Defence's space capability. Does Labor agree with that? What's your view on that spending decision and the potential for military conflict in space? And whether or not this is something that should be factored into our investment future?
CHALMERS: I notice Brendan O'Connor is watching me a bit more closely than he might have otherwise been paying attention to this answer! Clearly our Defence force needs to maintain capability and clearly the definition of capability changes very rapidly when it comes to Defence. And there are new frontiers in Defence technology all of the time. And any country like ours, investing so heavily in our Defence, needs to keep up with those developments and ideally get ahead of them. I haven't seen the detail of that $7 billion spend, but in principle, I support strong investment in our Defence capability and our Defence capacity, all of us do. And if the developments in technology require us to invest in those areas, then so be it.
DAVID CROME, SMH / THE AGE: Thank you, Laura. Thank you, Mr. Chalmers. David Crowe from the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. Part of your speech was about competence, about vaccines, and also borders. I want to ask about borders because there's a debate this week about where we go. I want to quote in full, a remark made by business chief, Chief Executive of Virgin Australia, Jayne Hrdlicka. "COVID will be part of the community, we will become sick with COVID and it won't put us in hospital and it won't put people in dire straits because we'll have a vaccine. Some people may die. But it will be way smaller than with the flu. We're forgetting the fact that we've learned how to live with lots of viruses and challenges over the years. And we've got to learn how to live with this." The Prime Minister responded to that by saying it was insensitive and he wouldn't have any truck with some of those remarks. But the Virgin chief said, we'll be vaccinated, we won't be in hospital, deaths will be lower than with the flu, isn't she right?
CHALMERS: I wouldn't have expressed myself exactly as Jayne did, but it's not for me to hop into the comments that she made. I think really the issue we've got here is the Prime Minister's failure on vaccinations and on quarantine. And if you think about it, one of the sentiments that people raise with us all the time including, probably especially, in the business community as we go around and consult widely in the boardrooms of this country, is people are worried about winning the war and losing the peace when it comes to some of these things. And what they mean by that is, we do have a foundation here, the Australian people have done a remarkable job, for the reasons I identified in my speech we have an opportunity here, and that's put at risk, it's jeopardised, by those failures on vaccinations and quarantine.
And one of the reasons why the Prime Minister doesn't have a target for vaccinations anymore is because he fell so humiliatingly short of the last target that he announced. Other countries with which we compare ourselves have got targets when it comes vaccine deployment. Others are doing something more meaningful on quarantine. And one of the reasons why the business community is expressing some of these concerns or raising some of these issues is because they know, as we know, that we should be doing a much better job on both of those fronts. It's the Prime Minister's responsibility. He loves talking about other people's comments on vaccines and quarantine because he loves to distract from taking responsibility from what has been a couple of the defining failures of the last six or twelve months.
CROWE: Laura, could I ask a second question? Sorry, look, I just want to ask you, I just want to make this point. You are seeking to be the Treasurer of the country. You answered my question by referring to Scott Morrison. My question was about whether you agree with the Virgin chief. Do you agree with her?
CHALMERS: I started my answer by saying I wouldn't have expressed it that way, no. That was actually the first thing I said in my answer. But one of the reasons why people are expressing their concerns is for all of the reasons that I ran through.
PATRICK COMMINS, THE AUSTRALIAN: Hello, Mr. Chalmers. Patrick Commins from the Australian newspaper. I'm going to return to wages. You've talked a lot about the need to lift wages but you must recognise that there are a lot of structural forces at play, the Reserve Bank talks about the changes the globalisation, technology, shrinking union membership. Now, do you accept that a bolder vision needs to be taken to lift wages, it needs more than just tinkering around the edges? Would you consider returning to some of the policies that Labor talking to the last election? You know, such as talking about, I think Laura kind of referred to it obliquely, but around 20% increase to childcare worker pay, for example? Or the concept of a living wage?
CHALMERS: Thanks very much, Patrick. I think in terms of the care economy, the issue right before us right now is aged care workers wages. And if you read that Royal Commission Report, the two Commissioners didn't agree on everything, as you know, you would have read it all as well, but they agreed that there's an issue with wages in aged care. One of the reasons why we've got stagnant wages growth in this country is because some of our bigger female dominated workforces have had such horrible wage outcomes. The Government didn't really go near that in their response to the Royal Commission. But what the Royal Commission said was, there's a role for Fair Work in acting on that front and that might have consequences for Government spending down the track. And so our view is, clearly there's an issue with wages in the sector. Clearly, it's not good enough that you can get more money stacking shelves then looking after our most vulnerable older people. Something needs to be done about that. In the first instance, it's a task for Fair Work Australia to do that work. So that's on aged care.
In terms of some of those other structural issues, yes, I completely agree that there are a whole range of forces at play here but I don't consider some of the things that we're proposing to be tinkering around the edges. That childcare policy has the capacity to be a game changing investment, not just in families as important as that has been, in terms of economic reform. And so I don't consider that to be tinkering.
We've got Tim Watts here, and Ed Husic, and some of our big thinkers on technological change, these are some of the big trends that are changing the labour market. I wrote a book with Mike Quigley about some of these issues as well for this reason. These are massive issues and I don't accept that what we are proposing is necessarily tinkering. In terms of wages over a longer period, the Government wants to quibble with numbers we're using about the cut in real wages in the Budget. There has been a structural step down in wages growth in this country. Under the last Labor Government it averaged 3.6%, under this Government barely 2%. Real wages, 0.8% under the last Government, under this Government 0.5%. There's a structural step down for many of the reasons that you identified. And I don't think any self-respecting Government - and certainly not a self-respecting Labor Government - could throw around $100 billion and rack up a trillion dollars in debt and make real wages worse at the end of the Budget period than at the beginning.
TINGLE: If I could just intervene there, given your critique and also your comment about the fact there has been this step down which has to be addressed, doesn't that require a Government, if you were coming into Government at the next election, to actually say we do actually need to have a shock to the system, if you like, here and that the Government has to intervene in those cases, across the board, in the Fair Work Commission?
CHALMERS: It's the same answer from before, Laura. I think wages cases are important and particularly on aged care. If the government adopted all the recommendations of the Aged Care Royal Commission, one of them was about a role for Fair Work Australia in determining a more appropriate wage structure for people in the aged care sector.
All of us know people who work in aged care, and you know it's appalling to think about what they are paid and a lot of the unions have I've been making a very convincing case that something needs to be done. In the first instance, it's a task for Fair Work Australia, and Governments of either persuasion would need to respond to that. I think what has disappointed people is that in responding to the Royal Commission the Government responded to some aspects of it but there's very little in terms of something for the workers out of that.
SARAH ISON, WEST AUSTRALIAN: Sarah Ison, from the West Australian. This morning we had a Chinese foreign spokesperson talk about how the business community had some valuable suggestions and ideas, and really welcome that kind of olive branch. Do you think the Government needs to listen more to the business community when it comes to that relationship? And are you concerned about the deteriorating relationship in the face of what's going to be record debt for years and years to come if that relationship gets worse, obviously going to lose a bit on trade? What are your thoughts about those two things happening at the same time?
CHALMERS: I'm incredibly concerned about it, as is the business community. And when you spend as much time in the business community as I do, you have a handful of things raised every time - energy policy is one, the relationship with China is another. And there are costs and consequences for our exporters and for all the people that they employ, including out of the state that you write for, in getting this wrong.
I would commend everyone here to a really thoughtful speech that Penny Wong delivered around the corner a couple of hours ago about our relationship with China, picking up on a lot of the issues that have been raised by the business community with Penny, and with all of us, over the last few years. Our critique of the Government in this regard is that they have failed to plan for a more assertive China. Nobody's pretending away the fact that China has become more assertive. And our concern is that we're not responding; don't have a plan to deal with that.
This is obviously an incredibly complex, difficult, evolving relationship. And what it requires is calm, considered, purposeful, thoughtful leadership. And even the Prime Minister's friends don't describe him in those terms, but that's how we think of Penny Wong. And so the difference between us and the Government when it comes to managing a more assertive China is going about it in a more calm, and considered, and purposeful, and thoughtful way. And I encourage you to check out Penny's speech in that regard.
TOM CONNELL, SKY NEWS: Tom Connell, from Sky News. Essential assumption to the Budget is it is sustainable through the medium term because growth in the economy outstrips growth in debt, with a big assumption there on interest payments as well. Is that a dangerous assumption?
CHALMERS: I think it's dangerous to rely on growth which is below trend in the Government's own Budget papers, even three and four years away. I think there is a complacency that marks the Government's Budget, that pretends that it will all become okay in time, despite the fact that not enough of this investment actually creates a step change in growth, or wages, or employment, or participation. And in many of those cases it actually goes backwards so I think there is a complacency there. I think it is dangerous to assume that this country's future is assured, or this country's economic future is assured. And one of the fears that I have, if you're asking me to be blunt about it, is having got through the GFC, and having got through a bad recession, but starting to emerge from that recession during the pandemic, I'm worried that that breeds a complacency. And we see it on almost every page of the Budget papers, this sense that it will all become okay. What we need is a Government which is more attentive to some of those medium-term challenges, which do jeopardise and do risk that growth that the Government's relying on.
JANE NORMAN, ABC NEWS: Hello, Jane from the ABC. Jim Chalmers, this morning the Government has committed $600 million to build a gas-fired power station in New South Wales. One of your colleagues, Joel Fitzgibbon, has said it was unequivocally a good idea. Another one of your Labor colleagues, Chris Bowen, has said it's just not justified by the economics or the engineering. I'm wondering who do you think is right in this debate? And is this another example of, I suppose, the endless friction that we've seen in both major parties, but particularly Labor over the climate debate?
CHALMERS: I don't think either of those comments will come as a big surprise to anyone in the room, I think we could have expected them before the announcement. My view is Chris's view that we need to see the business case. And if this was such a stunningly good idea, why isn't the market funding it? We're talking about $600 million on a project that the Government's own experts don't recommend and don't support. And so I think that that should raise questions.
I understand Joel's point of view as a local Member and as someone who's had a long standing interest in these issues, that's fine. But our view is $600 million is not small change, it's a massive investment in one project. There might be other worthy projects around the country, let's see the business case for this one in particular. On gas more broadly, we support gas in the economy, we think there is a role for gas for the foreseeable future in the economy, when it comes to firming up the system as more and more renewables come on stream. We've said that repeatedly and on that we're agreed.
TINGLE: Does that mean that IEA's sort of judgements about what should be stopped in the economies around the world in terms of fossil fuels is not compatible with where Labor is going in the immediate future on energy?
CHALMERS: No, I don't think so. One of the reasons why all of the major business groups in Australia, all the States and Territories, all the countries with which we compare ourselves, one of the reasons why everybody signed up to net zero is because they understand that that is an economically responsible course, which recognises that in the near term there will be a role for gas, and for coal, and for all of the rest of it. And so I don't accept the view that's around, even that view, and the view that's put around in politics sometimes that says that to do something meaningful about getting emissions down means immediately turning off the switch on some of these sources of power. There will be a transition, it's called a transition for a reason.
We will transition to a system that has more and more renewable energy, cheaper and cleaner energy in it. And we need to do that in a responsible way, that doesn't abandon communities like those in my home State. And I don't think that's beyond us.
My fear is with this conversation, it gets so unnecessarily polarised. And as a Queenslander, it's particularly annoying when it gets unnecessarily polarised about my home State. Australians are sensible, practical, forward looking people, they want something done about this. They know that good climate policy is good jobs policy, as Chris Bowen keeps reminding us. They know that cleaner and cheaper energy is good for jobs. They know that we can have a sensible target to have net zero emissions by 2050 without doing anything irresponsible in the near term and without abandoning communities. And that's our view.
MARK KENNY, ANU: Dr. Chalmers, Mark Kenny, from the Press Club Board and indeed from ANU, your alma mater. Welcome to the Press Club.
CHALMERS: Don't tell my Griffith friends that! I'm Griffith first and foremost!
(LAUGHTER)
KENNY: I wonder if I could take another crack at something Laura's raised a couple of times I suppose, and that's this question of wages. Should the Government consider not just intervening in minimum wage cases, but actually leading by example, as the Nation's largest employer, and lifting wages of people who are employed directly by it?
CHALMERS: Thanks, Mark. I think we need to strike the right balance in the public sector. I think there is, as the Reserve Bank Governor and others have pointed out, there is a role for the Government to lead on wages, but we need to balance that against all of our other fiscal priorities. Thankfully, that's a task for Senator Gallagher, who is sitting right there near you. It's a hard task to strike that balance effectively.
But we have always accepted, not just in wages but industrial relations more broadly, that with a big workforce that we employ directly as a Commonwealth, we do have a role to play to set an example. I think in the in the nearest term, the first priority is in some of those other areas we've been discussing, which are not necessarily the direct employment but in areas like aged care where wages have been such a substantial problem for a long time.
KENNY: Thank you.
PETER VAN ONSELEN, NETWORK TEN: Peter van Onselen, Network 10. Jim Chalmers, you're a Queenslander, what's the PM got against a Queensland quarantine facility?
CHALMERS: Scott Morrison flies into Queensland, bags us, gets the details wrong, and then flies out again. And that's what he did again in this most recent trip. People say to me sometimes, it must trouble you having Scott Morrison spend so much time in Queensland, I love it! Because when he comes there, he picks a fight, he gets something wrong, and then he goes again.
He's incapable of working with Premier Palaszczuk in a meaningful way, I think he's probably envious of the success that she has had making decisions which are right and resolute to limit the spread of the virus. So what he did on the most recent occasion is disappointing in the extreme. You'd think if he was going to bag an idea that somebody had about quarantine he'd get the details right and he'd have an alternative. Instead, he flew in, bagged it, didn't get across the details, didn't have any better ideas, and then left.
TINGLE: Should we have more those facilities around the country?
CHALMERS: Of course we should.
TINGLE: And should the federal Government be spending the money on it?
CHALMERS: The federal Government has a role to play in quarantine. One of the problems we have with this Prime Minister, is he never takes responsibility for anything. Quarantine is a Commonwealth responsibility. There is clearly an issue here. Hotels were built for tourism, not for quarantine. There's a role here to build facilities. We want to see genuine partnerships between the States and the Commonwealth when it comes to these partnerships.
What happened in Queensland was, somebody had an idea, which should have been examined, taken more seriously and examined more seriously, and if the details didn't stack up, then don't do it, but have a better idea. The Commonwealth has a role to play here, we've been saying that for some time now. And one of the reasons why we're not doing as good a job as we could be, when it comes to quarantine before we even get to vaccinations, is because the Prime Minister spends more time washing his hands of quarantine then actually trying to fix it.
COLIN BRINSDEN, AAP: Colin Brinsden, AAP. You probably sort of answered this already, but correct me if I'm wrong, one of your concerns about tax cuts, is where's the money coming from?. And we saw that with this one, $130 billion for personal income tax. And then there's the big business tax cuts that were rejected. And now we've ended up with a two-tiered tax system for companies, adding to the complexity of what we already have in the tax system. Would you as Treasurer have a tax review, a proper tax review? That includes the GST. Don't swoon. Because time and time again, economists and tax experts, not MPs, are demanding this and yet it's ignored and yet the Government, or MPs in general, use the word reform. It's not really reform, what we're seeing, we're just seeing changes.
CHALMERS: Well thanks, Colin. First of all, nobody's beating down my door for an increase in ihe GST. I know that from time to time the State Premiers are keen on that, and that's because every cent would flow to State Premiers. I'm trying not to make eye contact with Andrew Barr…
(LAUGHTER)
CHALMERS: …who's very keen on this outcome for understandable reasons, but we're not keen. And from time to time that gets couched as some kind of political judgement that we're making about the GST, in my view it's an economic judgement. I don't like the distributional impact of an increase to the GST and I'm not convinced that with whatever you raise you could sufficiently fund what the States want to do, compensate people who go backwards as a consequence, spend all of this money on the five or six other things that people have identified as a destination for a GST hike, so we're not up for that. In terms of a broader tax review, obviously I want to have a proper look at the tax system across the board. I'm not immediately attracted to something like what we did eleven years ago now, as important as that was, but all of these sorts of things would be kept themselves under review whether or not we'd go down that path.
I think there are opportunities in tax reform. I think as I said before, President Biden has shown some really important leadership when it comes to the taxation of multinationals, as Andrew will tell you and many of our colleagues, there is an issue in multinational tax. When it comes to Stage 3 tax cuts, which you also mentioned in your question, our view all along has been we need to get maximum bang for buck out of some of these commitments that the Government has made. I feel like our position that we took, when the Stage 3 tax cuts were announced, we said that the priority should be workers on modest incomes, we said that it didn't make a lot of sense to commit such a big sum, years and years down the track, when we didn't know what the economy, or what the Budget, would look like. Since then, the Government's racked up another $300 billion plus in debt. We feel like our position on Stage 3 has been vindicated, we should make a decision closer to when they actually come in. And that remains our view.
ANDREW TILLETT, AFR: Andrew Tillett, from the Australian Financial Review. Thanks for your appearance today, Dr Chalmers. Sticking with the tax reform theme, Andrew Barr has done land tax reform. The New South Wales Liberal Government is embracing a similar sort of approach. In Victoria though, the Victorian Government down there this week has gone sort of backwards and decided to whack up stamp duty and property taxes and things that go against what probably economists would say is you know moving towards a more efficient tax system over land taxes. Just wondering, can you give us your thoughts on the Victorian moves, is that a regressive backward step? And more broadly, and I know these are obviously questions for the States, but if you are the federal Treasurer would you support the other states reforming their land taxes and would you be prepared perhaps to maybe put up some federal funds to grease the wheels on that.
CHALMERS: Now I know Andrew wrote this question for you!
(LAUGHTER)
CHALMERS: Having flicked Andrew's other idea, I appreciate the opportunity to give him a wrap for this idea. I think there is something in the stamp duty, land tax swap out, I've said that repeatedly for some time. And I think that Andrew in moving before the other States and Territories showed a lot of admirable courage in going down that path. I think it has been a really good idea, I text him sometimes when my land tax bill comes in from the place I've got around the corner here, but I think it's been a really good idea, well implemented in the ACT and I tips my lid to him for that.
The Victorian Budget situation, every State makes its own decisions about how they manage their Budget. And I think there is a lot of appetite around the States and Territories to look at what Andrew's done and make decisions about it. Some will make decisions in the near term to try and repair their Budget sooner, and that's a matter for them. What I try and do, and not just for great Labor Governments like Andrew's or like Dan Andrews’ in Victoria, is I don't actually think it's that helpful for the feds to be a kind of an ongoing commentator about the ideas and the steps that the State governments take, I want to work collaboratively, not just with the Labor States and Territories, but with the Liberal ones as well. The Liberals have taken some steps on this front that we support as well. I think in the future, at some future point, there is a lot of merit in a national scheme that swaps out, in the way that Andrew is doing here, stamp duty for land tax.
ASTRID WATTS, FREELANCE: Hi Dr Chalmers, thank you. I'm going to throw you a curveball. As you know, I was going to ask about the NDIS. I've changed my mind. I'd like to ask you about social housing. As a disability pensioner, you are only allowed to save up a certain amount of money before your pension is garnished to a point where you will no longer have savings. I know social housing is a fantastic construct, but what happens to those of us who are on disability pension who actually want to own our own house? How do we overcome? And what is Labor going to do to help disability pensioners own their own houses?
CHALMERS: Thanks very much, Astrid, I was expecting an NDIS question, I'll admit that. Doing something meaningful about housing is expensive and our first priority is to build those 30,000 social and affordable homes. I know that's not precisely what you're asking for, but when you think about making your priorities and recognising the position of the Budget, then you need to do first what do you think will make the most impact. And so our approach, we can't do everything at once, but our approach has been to focus in the near term, immediately, on building those homes. If there are other good ideas in terms of boosting homeownership for people on DSP then I'd be pleased to hear them.
WATTS: Wonderful, thank you.
JOHN KEHOE, AFR: Hi Jim, John Kehoe, from the Australian Financial Review. You've called for a review of the monetary policy framework, I'm wondering if you think fiscal policy maybe needs to be part of that, given where we're at this zero lower bound world now, where fiscal and monetary policy are interacting together a lot more?
CHALMERS: I do. I think that's one of the main reasons why it would be useful to have a look at, to have a review of monetary policy. I mean if you think about it, monetary policy, realistically, is tapped out. And so the burden has fallen more and more on fiscal policy for all the reasons that I ran through in my speech. I have a mountain of respect for Phil Lowe and the Reserve Bank team and the Board. And I think that it would be helpful to them for an incoming Labor Government to have a good think, given that it hasn't happened for some decades now as you know, to have a good rethink about the relationship between monetary policy and fiscal policy, but some of the other associated issues as well.
I think the primary problem with economic policy in the last little while, certainly under this Government, has been a failure to understand the role of fiscal policy, but I think monetary policy cannot be left out of any reconsideration of how we go about it. I've spoken to the Reserve Bank Governor about this. Your counterpart wrote some good stories about the future of the Reserve Bank, as you know, and we all read those and were part of those. I do think now's the time to look at monetary policy and fiscal policy together to see what we might be able to do better. And that's not a criticism of the Bank, but it's I think a meaningful, useful step that we could take together in partnership.
TINGLE: At the risk of showing prejudice for my old newspaper, another question from Phil Coorey.
COOREY: Had a request for one more. Just back on the tax reform stuff, so I think in the last few answers you've talked about 'possibly' repurposing some of Stage 3 and following Joe Biden on multinationals, is that sort of extent of your thinking? Biden's also going to lift the corporate tax rate higher again too after Trump lowered it, is that something you'd be looking at or are you happy with where the current corporate tax rates are?
CHALMERS: We're not attracted to an increase in the company tax rate, the headline rate. I think more of the developments trom the US and elsewhere, the OECD, including from our former colleague David Bradbury and some of the others working on these sorts of issues, is not as focused on the headline rate as some of the real rates, the effective rates, of tax. And so clearly we're monitoring very closely what's coming out of the US and coming out of Paris on these issues. And we think that there are opportunities to tax multinationals more fairly, we hope to have more to say about that.
In terms of Stage 3, to add to what I've already said, we will finalise, we'll conclude a view, before the election, on what we intend to do with Stage 3. I think the fact that the Government is so keen to talk about Stage 3 which comes in three years down the track is an indication they've given up defending their own Budget. We don't feel hurried on it. We don't feel hurried to come to a position. We feel vindicated. We said at the time that this incredible amount of money was directed towards tax cuts for the highest income earners, we said that it will make more sense to come to a view on those later, and that remains our view.
DAVID CROW, SMH / THE AGE: Thanks again. Laura asked you earlier about quarantine, it's obviously fundamental to the economy, Laura's question was should more quarantine centres be built, you said yes. I'd be interested in how a Labor Government would actually do that. And also on the specifics with Queensland, have you had a chance to look at the Wellcamp proposal for Toowoomba, do you think it should be built in Toowoomba, is that a good location for it? But I guess the most important thing is how would a Labor Government actually proceed?
CHALMERS: Thanks, David. Well first of all on the Toowoomba proposal, the point that I'm making is let's not come to a decision on it before we understand the details. I'm not going to make that mistake. The Prime Minister made that mistake. He came to a final view on it thinking that there weren't flights into Toowoomba Airport, that there weren't relevant health facilities - both of those things were wrong, right? The point I'm making is the State Government, the Wagner family, Scott Morrison, they should sit down and work out whether it works or not, and if it doesn't come up with something better, but don't bag it before you understand it, that's really the point I'm making about that. I'm not going to fall into that trap. There might be good reasons not to do it, but they're not the reasons the Prime Minister identified. He also said before he corrected himself, implied that Toowoomba was in the middle of a desert, which is news to the farmers in some of the best agricultural land on the planet.
(LAUGHTER)
CHALMERS: So that's what I think about Toowoomba. More broadly about quarantine facilities, Anthony had a proposal in his Budget Reply about the facility in the Northern Territory that at the moment quarantines American Defence personnel, there are opportunities there. Clearly there's something in the proposal the Victorian Government has put forward.
Really, if we had a Prime Minister that was genuinely interested in collaborating and cooperating with the States to fix this mess that he's made of quarantine he wouldn't so easily dismiss some of these ideas that are put forward. A Labor Government wouldn't do that, we recognise there's a role for the feds in quarantine, the current Government has let people down on that front, and we need to see a fixed.
TINGLE: Finally, Jim Chalmers, can I ask you to commit to debating the Treasurer here at the National Press Club in the next election campaign?
CHALMERS: I would like to debate him at 9am on every day of the next election campaign, and I'd invite you to put that to him and see if he's keen.
(LAUGHTER)
TINGLE: Please join me in thanking Jim Chalmers.
CHALMERS: Thanks a lot.
ENDS
