E&OE TRANSCRIPT
TV INTERVIEW
SKY NEWS KARVELAS
SUNDAY, 4 SEPTEMBER 2016

SUBJECT/S: Government chaos in Parliament; Royal Commission into financial services sector; G20; Donations

PATRICIA KARVELAS: My first guest tonight is the Shadow Finance Minister, Jim Chalmers. Jim, thank you for your time. I know you’re not well and it’s Father’s Day too. So, thanks for coming on.

JIM CHALMERS, SHADOW MINISTER FOR FINANCE: No worries, Patricia.

KARVELAS: Was it worth charging taxpayers more for delayed flights and extra nights’ accommodation for an elaborate parliamentary stunt?

CHALMERS: You said in your introduction, Patricia, that Labor was trying to create the image of a chaotic Government. I think the Government is doing a pretty good job of that on their own. What we saw on Thursday night was emblematic of a Government that just staggers from one stuff-up to the next. On its own, what happened on Thursday would have been very damaging for the Turnbull Government, but when you combine it with the $107 million black hole in the Omnibus Bill, when you combine it with the disunity over superannuation, all of these sorts of things – the combination of that is just devastating for the Government’s credibility.

KARVELAS: Sure. There are reports, though, that you had people – or at least one person – pretending to leave the House of Representatives to pull this stunt. It sounds to me, and I dabbled in student politics, like student politics.

CHALMERS: Well I didn’t get into student politics very much, Patricia, so I’ll have to take your word for it. I don’t think fighting for a Royal Commission into our financial system is a stunt. I wouldn’t accept that for a moment. I think the Australian people will understand that there was one side in there showing up to defend their interests and there was another side, the Government, which was taking an early mark; not particularly interested in their parliamentary responsibilities. People will understand if that means Parliament sits a little bit later.

KARVELAS: Ok, on this banks issue – and that’s the motion you were trying to push in the House that had passed the Senate – the Government wants to strengthen the regulator, haul bank chiefs before a parliamentary committee, create a tribunal and now the small business ombudsman will probe conduct. So, really quite a suite of measures have now been introduced. Can you dismiss all of this?

CHALMERS: I think all of those measures represent a Prime Minister who’s contorting himself to do everything he can to avoid a royal commission. The difference between the measures that you’ve just mentioned, which have proven inadequate when it comes to getting to the bottom of some of these scandals, and a Royal Commission, is that a Royal Commission can look at the adequacy of the laws and things like the business structure of banks. Whereas all of those measures that you just mentioned don’t go to the adequacy of the laws; they go to the application of the laws. I don’t think inviting the banks down for a biscuit and a cup of tea in front of a Liberal-dominated committee cuts it. I don’t think the Australian people think it cuts it either.

KARVELAS: But that’s not the only policy. That’s my point. That’s not their only policy.

CHALMERS: But my point, Patricia, is that all of them combined are inadequate when compared to a Royal Commission into our financial system. We want our banks to be strong and profitable, but we also want them to be as ethical as they can be, because at the end of the day, a lot of people rely on the financial system. We want them to have a good experience. What we saw in the Parliament last week, when the Liberal Party and the National Party were talking about a Royal Commission and we were asking them about specific victims of the financial system, we saw this kind of sneering disdain for people who have been treated badly by our banks. We want to represent them. That’s what last week was all about. We will keep pushing for that Royal Commission because we want to stand up for people.

KARVELAS: The Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has warned in his speech to world leaders that they risk a mistake of historic proportions if they hide under the doona and ignore economic scaremongering and this protectionism. Do you agree with the sentiment of the Prime Minister’s speech?

CHALMERS: When it comes to the Prime Minister’s appearance at the G20, we want him to do well, because we want Australia to do well. We want the G20 to be influential. It was influential during the financial crisis. My fear is, and a lot of people’s fear is, that it’s less influential now. But we want Australia to be successful in that forum. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister doesn’t go there with fistfuls of credibility when it comes to economic leadership. If he cared about that division that he’s talking about around the world – if he truly cared about it – he wouldn’t be doing what is arguably the most divisive thing you can do in the economy right now, which is to take money out of hospitals and schools and gift $50 billion to multinational corporations.

KARVELAS: Sure. But my question was about the message of protectionism, which he’s warning against. Is that one you share?

CHALMERS: My point, Patricia, is if you are worried about people who are tempted to go backwards to protectionist times, then you wouldn’t be fostering that economic division, that economic inequality that really feeds the type of people who are then prepared to vote for Trump, or Corbyn, or Sanders, or Hanson, whoever it may be. I do agree, that for all of us who believe in open markets with appropriate protections, that there is a real risk around the world of people going backwards. But the way to fix that is not to try and implement divisive policies like that $50 billion tax cut at the same time as he lectures us about the moral challenge of fixing the Budget.

KARVELAS: You want an end to foreign political donations, particularly after what we’ve seen this week with Sam Dastyari, which is an ongoing, very, very embarrassing moment for Labor. Given you want these contributions to end, I’ve got to ask you: have you ever accepted a trip or a political donation from a foreign Government or a foreign businessman?

CHALMERS: Not a donation, but like almost all Parliamentarians, I’ve been on trips sponsored by others. There’s really few avenues beyond that to educate yourself about the wider world. So, yes I have. And you’re right to point out that Labor has tried to crack down before on foreign donations. We are up for a conversation about tightening the donation laws. That should begin with the donation threshold, the declaration threshold. But it should also consider some of these matters that you’re raising.

KARVELAS: How would you design it though? I mean, you’ve heard the Prime Minister’s critique. Do you think the electoral roll is a good way to look at it? People only on the electoral roll can donate?

CHALMERS: I think if both sides have an appetite to clamp down on foreign donations, it’s not beyond us to work together on the best set of arrangements to implement that. We have got some detailed proposals on the table when it comes to declaring anything over $1000 and we’ve put a lot of work into that, but we’re certainly up for a conversation about the foreign donation side of it as well. You want to make sure that your electoral laws and your donation laws are keeping up with community expectations and standards. These are clearly the expectations and standards that Sam himself has recognised in, first declaring it and then taking steps to pay it back.

KARVELAS: Well, given his very strong and strident position; this is, Senator Dastyari on banks, for instance. So, he questions big business, he’s made himself really the hero for these movements and he appears to be quite compromised by having taken this. Hasn’t he really dented Labor’s ability to attack and to prosecute these arguments now that he’s been effectively compromised?

CHALMERS: Sam’s got a high profile and he makes a huge contribution and a valuable contribution; not just to our work in the Labor Party, but to standing up for people in the community and that work is well recognised throughout the country. People who don’t have a voice, Sam gives them a voice. The reason that we are talking about this issue some days after it came to light is because Sam declared it within the rules and then he stood up in the Senate and said: “You know what? On reflection that was wasn’t a good idea. I’m going to take steps to pay it back.” I don’t think that there’s another way he could have gone about it, having come to that conclusion that it was outside community standards. I don’t think that compromises his broader important and valued work.

KARVELAS: But when it happens on the other side, Jim Chalmers; when something happens like with Bronwyn Bishop, where it’s outside of community standards, Labor jumps up and down, makes huge arguments about these people having to stand down. Yet you’re standing by Sam Dastyari and allowing him to continue as a chief prosecutor, prosecuting a case against the banks. How tenable is that?

CHALMERS: There’s a very big difference between the example you’ve raised and Sam’s example now in that Bronwyn Bishop didn’t think she’d done anything wrong. She, for some weeks, was arguing that she hadn’t done anything wrong with her entitlements. The difference is that Sam stood up in the Senate and said: “You know what? I’ve done the wrong thing.” I think, out in the community, people appreciate that kind of reflection, that capacity to say: “Look, I did the wrong thing. I’m going to take steps to rectify it.” None of that humility, and none of that self-reflection, was evident in what Bronwyn Bishop did.

KARVELAS: Jim Chalmers, thanks for coming in tonight.

CHALMERS: Thank you, Patricia.