JIM CHALMERS MP
SHADOW TREASURER
MEMBER FOR RANKIN
 

 
 
E&OE TRANSCRIPT
PODCAST INTERVIEW
POLITICS WITH MICHELLE GRATTAN
WEDNESDAY, 4 AUGUST 2021

SUBJECTS: Cash incentives for Australians to get vaccinated; Vaccination passports; JobKeeper; Outlook for the economy; Labor’s policy agenda; Australians figuring Scott Morrison out; The next election; Health restrictions at Parliament House.
 
MICHELLE GRATTAN, HOST: Jim Chalmers, this week Labor said the Government should give everyone who's fully vaccinated by December 1 $300. That would cost $6 billion to the taxpayer. Isn't this somewhat profligate and aren't there better and cheaper ways to overcome vaccine hesitancy?
 
JIM CHALMERS, SHADOW TREASURER: I think this is a really responsible suggestion that we've put forward, Michelle. $6 billion is not a small amount of money but it's responsible because the most effective investment that we can be making right now is in fixing the failures in the vaccine rollout at the same time as we support small businesses and local economies which are doing it tough. We need to put that $6 billion into perspective as well. That is a fraction of the money that the Government has given in JobKeeper to companies whose profits actually went up and didn't need JobKeeper support, $13 billion at least wasted there. It's a tiny fraction of some of the other programs.  So we think it's responsible to make that kind of commitment. You'd get a lot of bang for buck in terms of public health outcomes but also in terms of economic outcomes. 
 
GRATTAN: The problem of getting people vaccinated though has been less the people who don't want to do it and more supply and inconvenience, surely?
 
CHALMERS: I think it's a combination of those things. If we're going to get to 80% or better, which is what we need to do, then we need to recognise that yes, some people have come forward, that's terrific, they should be rewarded for that, but there is an element of the Australian population who need a bit of a nudge, who need a bit of encouragement. So that's what this is all about, providing that extra incentive.
 
GRATTAN: Is it more though an economic stimulus than an incentive, is that the prime motive?
 
CHALMERS: I'm not sure it’s the ‘prime motive’; I think it's equally important. The public health outcome is obviously what we're looking for but we've made no secret of the fact that we think the economy needs a shot in the arm, and this will help provide it. We're in a very difficult patch for the economy right now. The Government itself says that the economy is bleeding billions of dollars a week as a consequence of these lockdowns and we say that those lockdowns are a consequence of the failures on vaccines and quarantine. What we're saying here is let's deal with the causes and consequences of the lockdowns at once. $6 billion is a responsible suggestion that we're putting forward, it would provide cost of living relief for families and support small businesses and the economy at the same time as we get that public health benefit.
 
GRATTAN: Labor has called for the return of JobKeeper but as you mentioned that program had a lot of waste and money that wasn't passed on to employees when it should have. Isn't the COVID Disaster Payment in fact more fit for purpose?
 
CHALMERS: The fact that the Government wasted so much money on businesses that didn't need JobKeeper makes it harder for them to give proper support to the small businesses and workers who still genuinely need help. JobKeeper played an important role in the economy. We think, overall, it was successful, but there was too much wastage, probably the most wastage of any Government program in the history of the Commonwealth. What we would prefer to see is less wastage for businesses that don't need it, more support for those that do. When it comes to the support package that the Government announced, they actually announced four different updates on the support package trying their best to replace JobKeeper without the humiliation of saying that they were wrong to cut JobKeeper in the first place. We've been supportive of any extra money that can get to workers and small businesses in the community but it's no substitute for JobKeeper, and we've said that all along. Unfortunately, we were right in March, when we said don't end JobKeeper support before the pandemic's over. The economic recovery in its beginning stages was pleasing, but it was hostage to the Government's failures on vaccinations and quarantine and that's what we're seeing right now with the billions of dollars which are being bled from the economy.
 
GRATTAN: So would a Labor Government reinstate JobKeeper if there were still big lockdowns?
 
CHALMERS: I think we need to recognise that if and when we take office it's more likely to be next year than this year. So we would weigh up the contemporary economic situation, the health situation, and work out the best course of events. But I think it is certainly true that we wouldn't have cut JobKeeper in March. That decision that the Government took is looking dumber and dumber by the day, objectively, because they should have had the capacity to dial it up or dial it down. They had lockdowns continuing for the rest of the year, they had outbreaks of the pandemic throughout the rest of the year, but they cut that support too early. What we would do, is what we've said all along: economic support should reflect the economic conditions at the time and we'd make our best judgments based on the economy we'd inherit.
 
GRATTAN: So that's a maybe? Or a not necessarily?
 
CHALMERS: Yeah, if it was necessary to reintroduce it, we would. But what we've really said all along is let's make the support mirror what's actually happening in the economy, not what we hope is happening in the economy. We would be far more responsive. I think the Government's failure to react and respond quickly enough to the deterioration in the economy has been really costly in terms of people's jobs.
 
GRATTAN: There's a debate now about the so-called vaccine, passport, which will give more freedoms to vaccinated people, what's Labor's attitude to that?
 
CHALMERS: I think, inevitably, there will be a national conversation about what having a vaccination means for your ability to access travel, or events, and the like. I think that conversation is important and it's inevitable. But I think the first priority is to try and get those rates up. If you think about communities like the one I represent, vaccination rates are incredibly low. What we need to do is get that up. That's why we've proposed that $300 incentive payment for anyone who gets two jabs by the first of December this year. Because our first priority is to get the vaccination rates as high as we can, at the same time as we have this conversation about what being vaccinated entitles you to.
 
GRATTAN: But you can't leave that conversation, you said the same time it has to be had, so what would you feel about such a vaccination passport?
 
CHALMERS: I think, inevitably, there's going to be some kind of rules for what it means to be vaccinated and unvaccinated in the community as the economy opens up, I think that's inevitable, we should be having that conversation now. My point is, first of all let's get as many people vaccinated as we can. That's been our priority. That's why we've proposed the payment. And that's why it's been so disappointing that the Government's dismissed it out of hand. 
 
GRATTAN: So do you think it's fair enough that people who are not vaccinated, for example, couldn't go on a domestic airline?
 
CHALMERS: I don't have a concluded view on that, but I certainly think it's fair for us to be working out what does it entitle you to, to be vaccinated.
 
GRATTAN: That's a very basic question. It's not difficult, surely?
 
CHALMERS: I don't have a concluded view, I don't think anybody in this parliament has a concluded view on that question. It's an important question, important conversation. I do think being vaccinated should entitle you to different things in the community. But first of all let's incentivise, let's use the carrot before we finalise our view on the stick. That's why we've made that constructive proposal.
 
GRATTAN: As you indicated earlier, the election we know now will be next year not this year, the early months of next year. What sort of economy do you think Labor would inherit if it won that election?
 
CHALMERS: As you'd expect Michelle, I spend almost all of my time thinking about this because I think it's really clear that the economy today, in this September Quarter that we're in, is in a world of pain because of the lockdowns.
 
GRATTAN: Negative?
 
CHALMERS: I think every credible economist expects that the economy has actually shrunk this quarter. The biggest state economy's obviously the biggest part of that, but lockdowns elsewhere have been important too. I think whether or not December is also negative, as the Treasurer said it might be, depends on how long the lockdowns go for. It depends what happens in Southeast Queensland, what happens in Sydney, and whether we have new lockdowns indeed around Australia. If the election was in somewhere between March and May next year, as you expect and many of the sharpest political commentators expect, then we would ideally be in a position where the vaccination rates are up and the economy's starting to look like it might recover again but we don't know because we are hostage to those failures on vaccines and quarantine. That's been the lesson of 2021. We don't want to squander the good things Australians have done for each other. We had the beginnings of a recovery in 2021. That was squandered and jeopardised by the withdrawal of support and those other two failures that I keep mentioning. So we don't know where we'll be at the beginning of next year. We will have certainly been through a rough period. Ideally, we'd be starting to recover again, but nobody really knows. 
 
GRATTAN: Now if we turn to the major policy decisions we saw Labor announce last week, you won't disturb negative gearing or the stage three tax cuts, but isn't this a case of putting politics over good policy?
 
CHALMERS: Not necessarily, Michelle. I think that the most important thing that we could do, having taken the decision not to repeal the legislated tax cuts or to change the existing regime for negative gearing and capital gains, having made that decision after a long period of consideration and consultation, is to announce that, give people some clarity about what our position is. I think everybody understands, in one way or another, even those who may have wished we take a different decision, I think people understand that the highest priority right now needs to be the management of this pandemic, which is doing such damage to the economy and to local communities. And also what the economy and our society will look like after COVID-19. And what we're able to do now is to focus properly on that. And that's why we took that decision and why we announced it immediately.
 
GRATTAN: At the last election Labor campaigned strongly on inequality, but these decisions fly in the face of everything you said?
 
CHALMERS: No, there's more than one way to address the problem of inequality and social immobility, and to make sure that when we create opportunities in this country that we spread them fairly, right around the country to more people. You think about our commitments on social housing. That is a really important way to tackle inequality in this country. You think about making sure that people can work more and rely more heavily on the childcare system, that's another way that we should be thinking about this important question. But there are a whole range of ways we can go at this. Multinational tax fairness, so the multinationals pay their fair share of tax and we can invest that in social services.
 
GRATTAN: But we've heard that from both sides over many, many years.
 
CHALMERS: I think there's an opportunity for multinational tax reform beyond what has been done to date. I mean, that's the lesson out of the United States, you'd be following that too Michelle. President Biden and Secretary Yellen, out of the OECD in Paris, there is a global appetite to do something about multinational tax reform and we want to be part of that story. Because if we can invest those proceeds in social services and tackling inequality, that's another way to go about it. So I guess what I'm saying to you is there's more than one way to make dealing with inequality a priority. I think most people understand that Labor will always make tackling inequality a higher priority than our political opponents. 
 
GRATTAN: So was all that you said about the tax cuts and about negative gearing wrong? Or are you saying circumstances have changed? Or are you saying that Labor is just now more politically pragmatic under Anthony Albanese than it was under Bill Shorten? Which of those things are you saying?
 
CHALMERS: Of course circumstances have changed. I mean, we've had a recession, the Treasurer can't rule out a second recession…
 
GRATTAN: But is that driving these changes in policy? Because you said yourself, it's a very hard decision, it was an on-balance decision?
 
CHALMERS: We need to find a way to be ambitious for the country and to have an uncluttered policy agenda, a more focused policy agenda. We've said that for much of the last two years. I think the nation expects and deserves a Labor Party which is focused on the Government's failures on vaccines and quarantine in the near term and in the future how do we get cleaner and cheaper energy, how do we teach and train our people for technological change, how do we do a better job of turning our ideas into Australian jobs. These sorts of things. And I think we can be ambitious without having a cluttered policy agenda. But I'll also say this, Michelle, for a bit of perspective, and you probably know this better than anyone else that I know: no political party takes an identical agenda to one election that they took to the one before. I don't think you could find once since Federation where that's been the case, where every single policy that was taken to the election before is taken to the one after. So we need a bit of perspective here. The idea that nothing has changed since 2019, when we've had a recession, the Treasurer can't rule out another one, we've had a pandemic, we've had all of these issues come up, I think it's entirely reasonable for us to be focused, and ambitious, and say our priority in the near term is managing a pandemic, and into the future, how do we grow a more sustainable, stronger economy, learning the lessons of all the economic policy failures leading up to COVID. That's our focus and I think that's appropriate.
 
GRATTAN: Given your new attitude and also the huge deficit we now have, will Labor be putting forward a very modest spending program?
 
CHALMERS: I think it will be more modest than last time, in the sense that we have said repeatedly we can be ambitious but be more focused. And I've just run through the reasons why I think that's important. But we will have important commitments. We've already laid some out there on childcare, National Reconstruction Fund, cleaner and cheaper energy transmission, electric vehicles, a whole range of commitments that we've already made. So there will be a big, substantial agenda from us. It'll be more focused than last time. And obviously the priorities will shift given all that we've been through as a country in the last couple of years.
 
GRATTAN: Will you be prepared to blow out the deficit further or will you cover any proposed spending by offsets?
 
CHALMERS: We will be more responsible than the Government when it comes to the Budget. If you think about this Budget right now there's never been a Budget since Federation that is more riddled with rorts than this one. This has been the most wasteful Government since Federation - carpark rorts, sports rorts, dodgy land deals, Safer Communities rorts, JobKeeper wastage, all the rest of it. So we'll be more responsible.
 
GRATTAN: But will there be offsets for all spending?
 
CHALMERS: We will be more responsible with spending, there will be some savings, and we will look at areas like multinational taxes in terms of tax reform.
 
GRATTAN: But not necessarily totally offset?
 
CHALMERS: I think the most important thing is that the budget position reflects the economic situation. And I tell you, we won't be held to constraints that the Government's not held to. I mean, the Government spent $100 billion in one night on Budget Night, not a dollar of it offset! And nobody's saying to the Government what taxes are you raising to pay for that $100 billion in spending. The commitment I give the Australian people as the alternative Treasurer, is our Budget position will reflect the needs of the Australian people and the economy, the situation that we inherit in the economy. It will be more responsible than the Liberals, we won't be taking a lecture on responsibility from the most wasteful Government since Federation. Our Budget settings will reflect the economy. 
 
GRATTAN: Do you think that Labor is in a better position going into this election, to clinch your victory, than it was going into the last election when most people thought it was likely to win?
 
CHALMERS: I think the lesson from last time is that you can't tell six months out.  Most of those predictions turned out to be worthless, even amongst the sharpest political commentators. Most people were wrong about the 2019 election and so I think that urges us towards maximum caution about the next election. But I will say this. I'm not going to get into predicting the election, but the reason why I am cautiously confident, is because I think the Australian people are working Scott Morrison out. And I think that they're starting to see the Scott Morrison that we see here. A guy that is temperamentally unsuited for leadership. The guy that won't take responsibility. A guy that always wants to pretend that anything that's good that happens is his genius and anything that's bad that happens is somebody else's fault. And I think Australians are slowly seeing that and working that out. I think that's going to be an important factor in the election. I also think people are realising that we're in this situation with all of these lockdowns because he had those two jobs to do - vaccines and quarantine - and he hasn't done them. So whether the election’s at the end of this year, unlikely, or the beginning of next year, more likely, I feel like we will be very competitive. But the lesson from last time is who knows six months out. We will have done a lot of work, we will continue to do all the work, so that we deserve to win the election whenever it rolls around.
 
GRATTAN: Just finally, Jim Chalmers. We're talking today in this vast Mural Hall area of Parliament House. You've come from Queensland where there's been all sorts of restrictions. You're not allowed to come to my office, I'm not allowed to go to your office. How are you coping doing your work in Parliament House under quite strict conditions?
 
CHALMERS: Look, it's a bit unusual, Michelle.
 
GRATTAN: You can't even go to the coffee shop I understand, is that right?
 
CHALMERS: No, I don't think so. It's unusual but it's not as difficult as the situation at home. I've got three little maniacs at home at the moment in lockdown, like a lot of Queenslanders, and it's difficult. And I tell you, Michelle, we've been talking about difficult policy decisions but you know everyone here, and everyone in workplaces, in locked-down communities and elsewhere, everyone's just trying to do the best they can. They're trying to be good at their job, and a good mum or dad or member of a family, and the truth of that is it's difficult. And who knows whether we strike the right balance or not. It's difficult for everybody. And I think as a country we're just trying to do the best that we can. Australians are doing their bit and they should be applauded for that. 
 
GRATTAN: Jim Chalmers, thank you for talking with us today.
 
CHALMERS: Thank you, Michelle.
 
ENDS