E&OE TRANSCRIPT
TV INTERVIEW
SKY NEWS AM AGENDA
THURSDAY, 8 SEPTEMBER 2016

Subjects: Sam Dastyari; donations; Omnibus Savings Bill; Government’s superannuation mess

TOM CONNELL: I’m joined by the Shadow Finance Minister Jim Chalmers, who’s in our Brisbane studio. Jim Chalmers, thanks for your time this morning. Bill Shorten has said that he believes Sam Dastyari will be back; this is certainly not the end of his career, he says. But do we need to hear first a proper explanation of exactly what he said about the South China Sea and the policy? I know he says now he supports Labor’s policy, but all he said about what he did say during the election campaign was that he misspoke.

JIM CHALMERS, SHADOW MINISTER FOR FINANCE: I think it’s a waste of time to go combing back through those statements now. Sam has paid a heavy price. He’s a very close friend of mine, so I’m sad to see him tap the mat last night. But as Bill said, and others have said, we think that this will be a temporary situation. Sam’s got such a massive contribution to make and for as long as there are people who are treated unfairly in our economy, there will be a role for Sam to stand up for them. He’s such an effective advocate for people who’ve been treated unfairly and he’s such an advocate, as well, for minority groups right around the country. So I think Sam will be back. I hope he’s back. He did the right thing; he did a selfless thing. I think it speaks volumes about the Government that they want to continue to keep talking about this even after Sam’s resignation. There’s a very simple reason for that: they don’t want to talk about the hole in their Omnibus Bill; they don’t want to talk about the mess they’ve made of super; their division over hate speech; they don’t want to talk about their lack of an economic agenda. All of these sorts of things are why the Government is so desperate to keep talking about Sam.

CONNELL: We’ll get to a few of those issues that will hit Parliament next week. But you mentioned combing over being useless. I mean, this is about the South China Sea policy – a massive issue, one that really goes to stability and intentions in the entire region. Surely it’s not being trivial to have Sam Dastyari clarify what he said and why he said it about the South China Sea?

CHALMERS: My point, Tom, is that Labor’s policy on the South China Sea is very clear and Sam says that he supports that policy. I think that’s the end of that particular issue and, we can keep combing over it as the Government would like us to do if you like. But there are more important things now that Sam has paid that price. He’s said since last week that he did the wrong thing. He takes no consolation from the fact that it was within the rules. But he made an error of judgement. He’s paid for that error of judgement with his two roles that he resigned from last night. I think now the focus should go back on fixing foreign donations. Really now the only one standing in the way of a fix for foreign donations is the Prime Minister and that’s because the Liberal Party is so heavily dependent on them. We know about that big donation that Julie Bishop secured, for example. We think it should be cleaned up. The focus should be on that and we should be asking Malcolm Turnbull why he stands in the way of fixing foreign donations so that this sort of thing doesn’t happen again.

CONNELL: On that broader issue of foreign donations, Chris Bowen has said that there’s a very important element of Australia and China’s relationship – our biggest trading partner – and there’s nothing wrong with MPs, in particular when in Opposition, accepting help, for example, on trips to go overseas because they don’t have the resources of Government. Is that something you agree with?

CHALMERS: I agree with the point that Chris made yesterday. People from all sides of Parliament in Opposition have been on trips like that. Really the issue we’re talking about now is the cash donations from foreign sources. There are members of the Liberal Party who have called for change in this area. We really need to know why the Prime Minister doesn’t support cleaning up foreign donations. We’re certainly in the cart for that. We’ve had a policy on that for some time. We’d love to sit down with the Government and work out an effective way to tighten donations and not just in terms of foreign donations, but also in terms of tightening thresholds and that sort of thing as well.

CONNELL: So perhaps would cash donations be separate to overseas trips that Chris Bowen was talking about?

CHALMERS: It shouldn’t be beyond us, Tom, to sit down in a spirit of good faith and work out the best way to tighten up these arrangements. It’s not for me or for anyone else just to make up these sorts of things on the run. We should always be looking for ways to have the tightest and cleanest possible electoral laws and donation regimes. We’ve got a whole series of ways to go about that – a joint standing committee for example and other ways. It shouldn’t be beyond us to work through all of those issues and come to a satisfactory outcome, which is consistent with community expectations and maintains the integrity of our political system.

CONNELL: Moving into your area because Parliament is back next week. We’re expecting this Omnibus Bill to be presented again. We know that Labor had it too late to consider it during the last sitting week. As Shadow Finance Minister, where is this at with Labor and is it still likely to get your support?

CHALMERS: I think our cautious and careful approach to this Omnibus Bill has been warranted. It went from being a $6.5 billion savings package to $6.1 billion in the space of a week and then we found a $107 million black hole in it, which is very embarrassing for Scott Morrison. It took us two days to find that hole; something that he couldn’t find for two weeks. So we’ve been very careful about it. We’re pretty relaxed about going through it in detail and making sure it goes through all our usual party processes. We’ve been saying for some time that the position we support in the Parliament will broadly reflect the position we took to the people. But also, importantly, it will be consistent with our values. We’ve also spent a lot of time since the election listening to people and consulting with people who think that some of these savings could be achieved in a fairer way. That’s our responsibility to do to that; to have those conversations. So we’re working through the Bill with them as well. It’s also worth remembering, of course, that these savings were part of a broader suite of policies, so as we go through the Bill and take our time to do that, we match those up against some of the other things we intended to do if we won Government. So that’s where we’re up to with the Omnibus Bill. It will reflect what we took to the people, but also those conversations that are happening since the election. And making sure as well that as we go about Budget repair, we do it in a fair way and in a way that doesn’t hollow out the future.

CONNELL: So what do you mean about going through some things and getting suggestions on fairer savings? What’s an example of that and does that mean you’ll suggest alternative savings for the same amount, but not this same legislation that’s in the Omnibus Bill?

CHALMERS: It just means that we’re working through all the savings in the Bill with the relevant parties and also internally. That shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. That’s the responsible way to go about it. That approach of going carefully through the Bill is what discovered that $107 million hole, for example, that Scott Morrison wasn’t aware of. So our approach has been justified. We’re having conversations inside our show and outside to make sure that we’re going about Budget repair in a fair way. That shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone and our position will be known next week when it comes time to vote on the Bill.

CONNELL: But is that the possibility that, for example, on the Clean Energy Supplement, that you don’t want to hit the lowest income earners and that you might suggest an alternative? Is that the theory we’re working to here?

CHALMERS: It’s just a reflection that what we’ve been saying for some time, for some weeks now, that the position that we support will be consistent with our values. Everybody knows where Labor comes from in these sorts of issues. As we work our way through the Bill, we’re balancing a range of considerations. The policies that we took to the election, our Labor values, our consultation with the affected parties – all of those sorts of things – that’s just the normal course of events when you’re examining legislation like this. I think the Australian people expect us to comb over the legislation and make sure it reflects the policies that we’ve had and also our general approach to Budget repair, which is fair.

CONNELL: Sound likes a case of “watch this space”. Superannuation as well – now you’ve said last month the Government’s proposal might be the best opportunity to start Budget repair; that you’d always be relatively confident of a good outcome. Is that still the case?

CHALMERS: We’ve put on the table a way for Scott Morrison to get out of this mess that he’s made of superannuation. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem like he actually controls his party’s superannuation policy and that’s why we’ve seen the policy that he described as “ironclad” is being absolutely shredded by his backbench. Each day brings a new humiliation for Scott Morrison on super. Yesterday’s humiliation was presenting the spending parts of the legislation, but not the contentious part of Bill – the retrospective parts that his backbench is arching up about so substantially. He’s made a mess of it to date. We’ve tried to give him a way out of it. He’s saying that the final policy is still a month or so away. It’s a complete shambles and it’s indicative really of the fact this Government doesn’t have an agenda, and doesn’t have unity behind their economic policies.

CONNELL: We’re just about out of time, so very briefly then – it sounds like you’re not quite as positive as you were last month?

CHALMERS: We’re up for a deal on super. More than any other Opposition, we’ve put a very concrete thing on the table, which compromises on some key issues, but doesn’t compromise on retrospectivity and improves the bottom line by more than the Government’s package. If Scott Morrison was in control of his superannuation policy, he would grab it. He’s not. His backbench is in control of super and that’s why we’re having these embarrassing delays and half measures.

CONNELL: We’ll see where it all goes. Jim Chalmers, thanks for your time this morning on the program.

CHALMERS: Thank you, Tom.