JIM CHALMERS MP
SHADOW TREASURER
MEMBER FOR RANKIN
E&OE TRANSCRIPT
TELEVISION INTERVIEW
SKY NEWS AM AGENDA
WEDNESDAY, 30 MARCH 2022
SUBJECT: Federal Budget
LAURA JAYES, HOST: Let's go live back to Canberra now. The Shadow Treasurer Jim Chalmers joins us. Thanks so much for your time. It's been a long 24 to 48 hours. What is the worst thing about this Budget, do you think?
JIM CHALMERS, SHADOW TREASURER: I just think it's overtly short term and political in nature. It's a Government that can't see beyond the May election. Scott Morrison woke up at some point in the last couple of weeks and realised he had to call an election soon and so he got the shovel out. Some of that cost of living relief is obviously warranted in the context of real wages falling, but there's no plan beyond May for the country to grow the economy the right way and to make sure the recovery works for everyone. I think that's the main deficiency.
JAYES: I mean, $8 billion in cost of living handouts, people are going to get cash in their pockets. Do you think voters are going to be as cynical as you this morning?
CHALMERS: First of all, voters will get the same amount of cost of living relief from either of the parties. When it comes to the measures last night, our Shadow Cabinet's already determined to support the legislation when it's before the parliament later today, and so people should expect that legislation to pass and that cost of living support to flow. But that's not the only defining feature of the Budget. The defining feature of the Budget was a trillion dollars in debt and not enough to show for it, real wages falling by something like $26 a week on average, and absolutely no plan for the future. This is a vote seeker Budget, which can't see beyond the next six or seven weeks, from a Government which is running on empty, has run out of ideas after almost a decade, and whose legacy - if the government does change hands - is a whole lot of debt with not enough to show for it. Interest rates will be rising no matter who wins office, there'll be a petrol price increase in September as a consequence of this legislation. Really, right across the board, I'm not quite sure what the Treasurer is congratulating himself about when you consider the legacy of this Government after almost a decade.
JAYES: Well you say it's cynical, but you're still going to support it?
CHALMERS: We've said in the context of falling real wages, and almost a decade now of stagnant wages - but particularly acute right now when the costs of living are going through the roof - that there's a role for cost of living relief. We've been saying that for some time. Our own policies on child care and power bills are about providing that cost of living relief in a way that also delivers an economic benefit. I don't think it would surprise anyone that we think there's a role for cost of living relief, we'll be supporting these measures through the parliament. The difference between the parties is that the Government has no longer term plan for the future of the economy, and we do. That'll be the difference at the election.
JAYES: Anthony Albanese said this morning that at five minutes to midnight the Government’s suddenly caring about cost of living. But you're also talking about a Government that delivered tens of billions of dollars in JobKeeper. Is that really believable that claim?
CHALMERS: Of course it is. This is a Government which has gone after people's wages, and job security, and pensions, and Medicare, for the best part of a decade. Now, because he has to call an election in the next week or two, the Prime Minister wants to pretend to care about these cost of living pressures. One of the biggest lies that's told about the economy right now - and the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are equally guilty of this - they want to pretend that these cost of living pressures began when Russia invaded Ukraine. These cost of living pressures began when the Coalition started attacking the take home pay of Australian working families. That's what's put people under such pressure and that's been a long-standing problem. Not pandemic related, not Ukraine related, the Government has spent the best part of a decade going after people's living standards. Now, on the eve of an election, they want people to think that they care about these cost of living pressures. If they cared about the cost of living pressures, we wouldn't have had almost a decade now of those attacks on living standards.
JAYES: Okay, you have spent the best part of a decade, from what I can remember Jim Chalmers, talking about the need to grow wages. We are now looking at an unemployment rate with three in front of it. This should be the perfect time for people to get a wage rise, to get a bonus, to see that through the marketplace. The Government's own Budget papers show that that's not going to happen. So, if you've been banging on about wages for so long, what are you going to do about it? Are you just going to leave it up to market forces?
CHALMERS: What we're seeing right now with unemployment falling in welcome ways, is that that is not putting sufficient upward pressure on wages to deal with the skyrocketing cost of living. That's partly an issue of job insecurity, it's partly because it's - in the Government's own words - a deliberate design feature of the Government's economic policy, this decade of stagnant wages. So what we would do differently. Obviously, growing the economy is part of the story, but also training people to grab those higher wage opportunities. So we've got a policy around TAFE and unis. Obviously, making it easier for families if they want to work more to earn more, to do that by reforming the childcare system as an economic reform. Clearly, getting energy costs down with our Powering Australia Plan is part of the story right across the board. More specifically, we've got to deal with labour hire, which is undercutting wages. We've got to deal with the gig economy, which is undercutting wages. We've got to empower Fair Work Australia to turn casual, insecure jobs into more secure, permanent part-time jobs. There are a range of things that we could do. The big difference between the Government and Labor is we want to see responsible, sustainable wages growth. The fact that we haven't seen that for the best part of the decade, and now that the costs of living are skyrocketing, is a key reason why people are falling further and further behind under this Government.
JAYES: Do you accept that it's not easy to do, and particularly in in this labour market? And if you are elected, how long should voters expect until you do see wages growth? And what would you put it at? I mean, next year, it's meant to be 3.25%. What would it be under Labor?
CHALMERS: Well, first of all, we're not going to make the mistake that the Government's made, which is to overpromise and underdeliver on wages. Of course wages outcomes will be stronger under a Labor Government, which cares about growing wages so that people can keep up with the cost of living. The Government's made 55 different forecasts in their Budgets before last night when it comes to wages growth, and 52 of them have been wrong. That's because they are notorious for overpromising on wages before an election and underdelivering after an election, and we don't intend to make that mistake.
JAYES: Can you give us a ballpark?
CHALMERS: We're not going to put a number on it, Laura. Clearly, if you deal with all those issues that I ran you through, when it comes to our wages policy, you give yourself a greater chance of growing wages - more strongly, more responsibly, more sustainably - than a Government which treats it as a deliberate design feature to keep a lid on wages.
JAYES: But if you've been talking about it for ten years, you must have an idea about what these policies might do?
CHALMERS: These policies that we're talking about give Australians a greater chance of wage growth than against a Government which has gone after people's wages, and job security, and working conditions, for the best part of a decade. I'm not going to make the mistake that the Government's made, which is to come out and commit to these forecasts, which they have no intention and no ability to deliver on. We're not going to make the same mistake, we're not going to overpromise and underdeliver on wages. We will have - and we do have - a wages policy which gives Australians the best chance of decent wages growth, so they can keep up with these cost of living pressures. Nothing in the Budget last night makes up for the fact that after a decade of attacks on wages, and job security, and pensions, and Medicare, people are still way further behind than they were before these cost of living increases started to spike. The Government provides, and the Budget provides, some modest cost of living relief, which we will vote for today. But people are still in a big hole because you can't unwind a decade of attacks on living standards in one Budget or even in one term.
JAYES: And if you're Treasurer after May, will you put that petrol excise back up no matter what?
CHALMERS: What we've said about that, is that's our expectation that whoever wins office in May, that petrol prices will go back up in September. We don't want to pre-empt the conditions that might exist at the time, or the economy, or the Budget, that we will inherit at that time. But clearly, the intention of the legislation that the Government will move today is that petrol prices go down in the next couple of weeks, and they go up at the end of September. That is a deliberate strategy from the Government to take problems from this side of the election and put them on the other side of the election. That's another reason why this vote seeker Budget that the Government handed down is incredibly short-sighted.
JAYES: A bit of a booby-trap maybe for future Jim to deal with? Before I let you go quickly, there's $3 billion in cuts you were talking about this morning. The Government says, well, it's actually not the case, what you're talking about. They said it's more about spending moving into the Budget. Do you buy that?
CHALMERS: Of course I don't. There's $3 billion in secret cuts after the election. We're going to have a cash splash before, secret cuts after. They should tell us - if it's not Medicare, if it's not pensions - tell us exactly what it is.
JAYES: Okay, we'll let you have that one. Jim, we'll speak to you soon. Thanks so much.
CHALMERS: Thanks, Laura.
ENDS
