E&OE TRANSCRIPT
TELEVISION INTERVIEW
SKY NEWS AM AGENDA
THURSDAY, 24 MAY 2018
SUBJECT/S: Income tax cuts; Labor’s fairer tax plan; China’s economy; Labor’s plans for growth; offshore detention
KIERAN GILBERT: I'll get some reaction from Jim Chalmers on that a bit later, first though I want to talk about the passage of the tax cuts last night. Labor allowed them through. Can you explain Labor's thinking on that?
JIM CHALMERS, SHADOW MINISTER FOR FINANCE: What happened last night in the House of Representatives is the Government voted against bigger, fairer tax cuts for 10 million workers. What we asked the Government to do was to support our plan which would give substantially more tax relief to working people. They voted against that. And in doing so they voted for a smaller tax cut for working people so that they can give an $80 billion tax cut to multinationals and the big banks.
GILBERT: So in the short term you've ushered it through the Lower House, but pending a further look at the various phases?
CHALMERS: Yep.
GILBERT: What are you going to do? The Senate committee's going to look, and obviously you'll do a closer look at the numbers yourself?
CHALMERS: We tried to do two things in the House of Representatives. We tried to pass our version of the tax cuts for working people. Obviously the Government voted that down. We tried to split the bills so that we could immediately support the Government's tax relief for working people, which begins on 1 July. Obviously, we don't have the numbers in the House of Representatives, particularly at the moment. And so that got through the House of Representatives. Now it will go to a committee, and then to the Senate. And we will try again to pass our tax plan or to split the Government's bill so we can do what the working people in this country need and deserve, which is to give them the tax relief that they're being denied by this silly political strategy from the Government, which insists on passing tax cuts that are seven years down the track with tax cuts that are coming on the 1st of July.
GILBERT: That's the point though, isn't it? Why wouldn't you just allow it through the Senate as well, given those other measures are down the track? And when you get into Government you can change them anyway if you win the next election.
CHALMERS: We've got a much fairer alternative, and our responsibility to the Australian people it try to pass that in the first instance. If we're unsuccessful again, remembering it's a different equation in the Senate, there's a lot of negotiation to happen up there - if we're unsuccessful then, then we'll cross that bridge if we come to it.
GILBERT: And still a chance that you'll allow all three phases through in order to ensure those on low- and middle-incomes get that relief?
CHALMERS: We haven't determined a position yet, but on the actual policy merits, I think as I've said to you before, we're not wild about that third stage of the tax cuts plan. So we'll do our best to separate the tax relief for working people. We'll try to pass our fairer alternative. If we're unsuccessful, then we'll have another conversation about it.
GILBERT: When it comes to the broader economy we saw Governor Lowe last night...
CHALMERS: A fascinating speech.
GILBERT:...talking about the China risks in terms of their debt. Apparently it's provincial debt at the province level as opposed to the National Communist Party in Beijing, the national debt. What's your awareness of this? Is it a real threat to their growth?
CHALMERS: It really is, and full credit to Governor Lowe. That was a terrific, important speech that he gave last night. I think when you're talking about one of the two very big beasts in the global economy, people are more attentive to the risks than they might be in other smaller players. So obviously for some time now, people have been very focused on the run up of debt in China, particularly the run up of bad debt. As you rightly say, especially in the provinces. We're optimistic about China's growth trajectory, but that is a real risk; there's geopolitical risk as well, which we've talked about before. But that is a substantial risk. The Chinese have been aware of it for some time. They're all over it. They know they've got a big problem, and so we can have some confidence that the necessary steps can be taken.
GILBERT: Part of it is to shift the demand, isn't it? From being purely export to domestic driven demand as well.
CHALMERS: Yep, and that has huge implications for the rest of us, in terms of our services exports, in terms of our exports of raw materials - all of these things are so heavily impacted.
GILBERT: But it also means that you've got to maintain a healthy relationship though, doesn't it as well, in order to be able to service that massive middle class?
CHALMERS: Yes, ideally. You have to stand up for your interests. That's the most important thing. But at the same time, you have to be conscious of that economic relationship.
GILBERT: When it comes to the broader economic argument that Craig Laundy made - before we move on to the asylum seeker issue, I do want to ask you about that one at the end because it's a thorny one for Bill Shorten - but on the broader economic agenda, what is Labor's plan for growth? As Craig Laundy says, you don't have one policy to create a job and to generate growth.
CHALMERS: That's just complete rubbish, Kieran. I'm so glad you asked me. We've got an Australian Investment Guarantee, which gives tax relief to businesses who invest onshore. Contrast that with the $80 billion gift that will spray around offshore and not create any jobs here in Australia. We've got a whole productivity agenda around human capital, physical capital, the adoption of technology; we've got an agenda right across the board. The difference between the parties is, they want to put all their eggs in one basket, which is an $80 billion tax giveaway that will spray around in executive bonuses overseas and puffed up dividends and all of those sorts of things, versus our guarantee that investment will happen on shore. They vacated the field on human capital. They hollowed out TAFE, hollowed out uni, hollowed out schools...
GILBERT: That Investment Guarantee goes to every business for assets over $20,000?
CHALMERS: That's exactly right, and it's a faster write down of the investment that they make. And the interesting thing is, you don't see them say so much anymore, and I don't think Craig said it but I didn't hear all of his contribution, they all say we have to do this because of Trump. The bit of the Trump tax cuts that is actually working in the United States is the stuff about assets and equipment, not the giveaway that the Liberals want to do here.
GILBERT: Finally, on the issue of offshore detention. Linda Burney said yesterday she thinks there should be an explicit time frame and normally I wouldn't care about a slight shift in a transcript, but when you see entire slabs of a transcript of an interview removed, is not really that transparent. I mean, she said that here with David yesterday, and then the office released something else. What happened there?
CHALMERS: I'm not sure what happened there. I've seen you replay the interview this morning; I saw little bits of the interview with David yesterday afternoon, but I haven't checked it against the transcript. If you say that there's a disconnect, then so be it. Our position is, nobody wants to see people detained indefinitely. There is no set time limit, or a proposal for a set time limit, partly because a lot of it is out of our hands.
GILBERT: It will be discussed though, won't it? At the conference? Some within the party want a time limit.
CHALMERS: There will always be a discussion about all of the important issues - economic issues, foreign policy issues, all of that will be discussed at our national conference, because we have a real national conference, and not a stage-managed one. The point that we make is, if only the Government spent more time trying to negotiate third-country resettlement options than they spent poring over Linda's transcripts, I think we'd be better off.
GILBERT: But when it comes to this issue generally, many of your own constituents would be saying there needs to be a time limit. Why wouldn't you just back that? Get it done if you can find third party...
CHALMERS: I think around the community people don't want to see indefinite detention.
GILBERT: If you say indefinite but with no time limit, what does it mean?
CHALMERS: It's not entirely in our hands. It's partly to do with the countries where people are, like Nauru for example. Obviously, we would like to have an aspiration to get people through in a certain amount of time. That's not always possible. But I think in the broader community there are other issues, certainly in my community I don't get this a lot.
GILBERT: What? That they're not that focused on this issue?
CHALMERS: I get economic issues predominately, and some other issues, but I very infrequently get this issue.
GILBERT: Jim Chalmers, I appreciate your time. Thank you very much.
ENDS
