E&OE TRANSCRIPT
TELEVISION INTERVIEW
SKY NEWS RICHO
WEDNESDAY, 13 MARCH 2019
 
SUBJECTS: Federal election; Liberals’ economic mismanagement; Labor’s plans to boost wages; banking royal commission; Newstart
 
GRAHAM RICHARDSON: It is now my unique, distinct pleasure to introduce Jim Chalmers, who's in our, I think it's our Brisbane studio I'm assuming. G'day Jim, how are you?
 
JIM CHALMERS, SHADOW MINISTER FOR FINANCE: Yeah, good thanks Richo. I am in Brisbane. How are you travelling?
 
RICHARDSON: I'm travelling pretty well, I think. I'm here. I'm alive. I'm still pointing at the ground, so it's OK. As long as you're above it, they tell me things are all right. You've got an election coming up very soon now. Obviously you're red hot favourites. Every poll says so. In fact, Newspoll even more so this week. Now I notice the Government are going to have a Budget before the election. I think it's announced for early April, is it not? We hear today there's going to be tax cuts. Are they going to work?
 
CHALMERS: If the election's May 18, Richo, we're I think nine weeks away Saturday, which is not that much longer than the long campaign that Turnbull put the nation through last time. But what makes it a bit unusual this time around, is we have that NSW election in a couple of weekends’ time, and then we've got that Budget on the 2nd of April. I think when it comes to tax cuts, people are pretty smart. I think you've always said the mob always work you out in the end. I think if you spend five-and-a-half years looking after the top end of town at the expense of middle Australia, people aren't necessarily going to look at tax cuts at five minutes to midnight and think, oh these guys have changed. I think they'll be judged on the entirety of their term, no matter what kind of tax cuts they can cook up five-and-a-half weeks out from election day.
 
RICHARDSON: It's pretty late in the piece to be coming good, I guess. And it does smack of desperation, whatever else it is, it does smack of it because it isn't normal. But it extends this election period, as you say, to one like Turnbull's had and I remember Bob Hawke extended one once much to his detriment. He still won, but he didn't win by anything like he should have. I was there at the time, and I was appalled the way he handled it, but are you of the view therefore that this can't work because the history of long election campaigns doesn't help Government?
 
CHALMERS: I think there is a political orthodoxy about that, Richo. But the law of big numbers means that we might be due for a change. I think the thing we would say about the election - a lot of people say to us whether they're in the media or out and about in the business community, and I spend a lot of time in boardrooms as you'd expect, and a lot of people say to us that we're expected to win - but one of the heartening things about all that is whether it's in the Shadow Cabinet or in the broader Federal Labor team, there's no complacency about it. We know that the other mob will be increasingly desperate. We see all of these scare campaigns around borders and tax and all of these sorts of things, and so we're taking nothing for granted. One of the reasons for that, which you would appreciate given your history of campaigning is, when you're in the Shadow Cabinet, you spend a lot of time in these target seats campaigning with often first-time candidates. What you pick up from them is a real sense of desperation, leaving no stone unturned. I think that feeds through the whole show. You do draw inspiration from that when you hang out with these really good first-time candidates who are working literally around the clock to win as many votes as possible. I think that permeates the whole team.
 
RICHARDSON: Yeah, I think that's right, morale is important, and obviously Labor's got their tails up. I think in Liberal-land, things are pretty grim. There's not too many smiles you can find amongst their lot at the moment. Of course, it's not normal for Labor to be, if you like, the front runners. I'm accustomed to chasing. I'm not accustomed to leading.
 
CHALMERS: We were ahead in '01 we were ahead in '04, and it didn't go our way in the end, and I think that does mean that we're not complacent. It's possible to be ahead in the lead up to the election and still fall short, and unfortunately even in my 23 years in the Labor Party, I've seen that a couple of times already. We need to be dedicated, we need to make sure that even as the Liberals are tearing themselves apart, even though the economy's floundering, even though all of these things are hurting the Government at the same time, I think it's important that we keep our eye on the prize. I'm really pleased that from Bill Shorten, Chris Bowen, Tanya Plibersek all the way down through our show I think objectively we are doing that. We're making the case on policy. What we say about that, what we've said a heap of times around the country is we want to get into Government through the front door through the strength of our ideas, and not just kind of sneak through the back door because our opponents are hopelessly divided, and that's the kind of approach we're taking to the election.
 
RICHARDSON: I understand that. When you said the economy's floundering, what do you mean by that? Where is it floundering?
 
CHALMERS: Across the board, Richo. The last two National Accounts figures, as you know is the kind of key report card on the Australian economy, we've had growth slowing, we've got underemployment, we've got stagnant wages. The last two days we've had consumer confidence and business confidence figures come out and they've been weaker. Really right across the board there's a substantial softening in the economy, and this is supposed to be one of the strengths of this Government. They like to wander around pretending that they're superior economic managers, but they've got problems right across the board. The Budget, we've had debt double. All of these sorts of things together. I think a lot of people are sort of asking themselves, if they're so divided, so focused on themselves, why aren't they focusing on this floundering economy and the fact that people are struggling? I think the most important number out of all of those that I just ran through is the wages number. We've had historically stagnant wages, much lower than under Labor, much lower than under the Liberal Government before Labor. And that's a big problem for them. Because for a lot of people, the wages they get each fortnight or each week or each month, that's really the defining feature of an economy that's not delivering for working people anymore. 
 
RICHARDSON: Obviously wages have been stagnant for way too long. How do you, when you come into Government, manage to stimulate wages? How do you get some increases? How do you get people to actually have a bit more in their pocket?
 
CHALMERS: I think this is really one of our highest priorities. So you can do a range of things, Richo. We've already announced that we'll restore penalty rates, which is important. We've already announced that we would crack down on sham contracting and dodgy visas and the use of labour hire to undercut wages and conditions. Those are all important things. But we are also talking about the work that we are doing. Brendan O'Connor and Chris Bowen and Bill Shorten are doing a heap of work to see what we can do to lift the minimum wage in this country, because the gap between the minimum wage and a living wage, or the average wage, has been growing over time. And that's a big problem. So what we've said is we're working through ways that the Fair Work Commission, which decides the minimum wage, has the guidelines that they need and the priorities they need to get that minimum wage up to a more realistic level. A more responsible level, but also more realistic so that people who might be working full-time on the minimum wage can actually get by.
 
RICHARDSON: Yeah, it's interesting that, I remember when I was younger, you'd have Bob Hawke as the advocate for the ACTU or Ralph Willis putting the case - you'd have this big legal case and it'd be covered on TV for a week while the arguments were put for a minimum wage. Are we close to that again now?
 
CHALMERS: That was really the making of Bob Hawke if I read the history correctly. I read a lot of that history from that period and that seems to be the thing that really set Bob up, and probably Ralph Willis too. What we're heading towards, we've got a system where the Fair Work Commission, they have a national wage case and they take submissions from right around the community. A bit like what you're describing, but more like submissions from the Government, the Opposition, the unions, the business peak groups, and other parts of society, and they come to a decision about the best minimum wage. They weigh up all kinds of things - the plight of low-paid workers, but also impact on the labour market, inflation, all of these important factors. So it's a similar process, a different system, but a similar process. We've been making submissions in Government and Opposition for a long time now into that process. But what we may think may be missing - and we're still working through this, we've got more to say about it - what we are concerned about is that the Fair Work Commission when they make that decision, that they're making it on the basis of guidelines which properly reflect the fact that we do have a problem with wages, particularly people on low incomes in this country, and they need to factor that in. One of the most important things which people are realising now, which is very heartening from my point of view, is that low wages aren't just a problem for workers, as important as that is - probably the most important thing - but also a problem for the economy. One of the reasons the economy's so soft is because people don't have the money to spend in the shops, or to look after the kids. Even the Reserve Bank has identified that. They've said this is one of the most important factors driving our softening economy and so we need to deal with it, on behalf of workers, but on behalf of the broader economy too. If we can get the joint growing again, that will be good for business.
 
RICHARDSON: Yeah, it's a circular argument. Obviously, if wages aren't growing, then spending can't grow, because the average bloke hasn't got a quid.
 
CHALMERS: And you can see it right through the other numbers. I mean, consumption is very low. Household debt is very high. Household savings very low. All of these things paint a picture when you put them all together of an economy, as I said, which isn't delivering for ordinary working people. They just can't get the reward for effort that they need to look after the kids, and spend in the shops. And that's a problem not just for that family, not just for their local shops, but for the economy more broadly.
 
RICHARDSON: It is indeed. What about the role of banks. You've had a banking royal commission, which you and Shorten and Bowen have had ample opportunity to ahve a look at. What's your view on the banks? How do you rate them? Obviously, they're pretty unpopular with the punters. How do you rate them?
 
CHALMERS: There are huge problems in the banks, obviously. We called for the banking royal commission for two years before the Government signed up for it. Morrison voted against it 26 times, eventually dragged to it kicking and screaming, and we've been vindicated by what was found out there. There were a whole range of rorts and ripoffs in the system, which had a light shone on them, which is a good thing and now we need to clean up the mess. What we've said is that the banking royal commission came up with 76 recommendations. We're implementing, if we win Government in May, we're going to implement 75 of those recommendations, and we found a better way to do the 76th one. So we're up for a proper process for implementing the recommendations of the royal commission, because there were too many rorts and ripoffs, which were ruining people's lives, and we need to clean it up. We need to get back to having a banking system that people can have confidence in, that it's working in their interests and not against them.
 
RICHARDSON: The only fault I think with Hayne was stuff on brokers, because I don't think he understood how the industry worked, and I think if you cut out brokers - because it's more than half of loans now go through a brokers.
 
CHALMERS: We found a better way, we think, to do the brokers' recommendation. That's actually the recommendation that we improved. And we met with a heap of brokers, not just the peak groups, but local brokers too. I met with a heap of them, and I'm very grateful for their time. Bowen did, Clare O'Neil, who's our spokeswoman on this did. And what we discovered was that the recommendation that Hayne was putting forward did have some concerning possible implications, and we didn't want to see the mortgage brokers hit the fence. They do play an important role in the financial system. They help people find better loans, they're good for competition. So what we said was lets not make the consumer pay the upfront fee, let's make the lender pay the upfront fee, and we think that's a sensible change. There's some differences with the Govenment about some of the other commissions that are paid. But we did listen, and we did spend a heap of time with the brokers, and we think we came up with a better outcome. 
 
RICHARDSON: I hope so, because approaching banks is a daunting prospect for the average person, and having a broker do it for them is obviously a lot easier. That's why they became so popular. The old days of the benign bank manager that you visited, you had your own bank manager and you'd go up and see him and you'd get  your loan, that's how I got my first housing loan - that doesn't happen any more. It's a very different system to what it used to be.
 
CHALMERS: No, you don't run into your banker down at the local or something like that, putting a bet on or something like that. No, very different now.
 
RICHARDSON: (Laughs) Very, very, very different! Now, looking ahead to the next few months - the Government are coming up with tax cuts in this Budget. I've no doubt they'll try and make them pretty big. Do you think it's too late, you've got to do more than that? Or do tax cuts work as, if you like, an election tactic anymore, or do people just say everyone says that? Every party's promising me that?
 
CHALMERS: I think, firstly the point we made before, a leopard doesn't change its spots, and so I think people consider this Government to be a Government for the top end of town at the expense of everyone else. So I don't think the tax cuts will fundamentally change that. I do think it's important that we boost the take home pay of people on low and middle incomes. We've actually got tax cuts out there since the last Budget that we propsed, which I think I've spoken to you about before - bigger, fairer tax cuts for people up to $125,000.
 
RICHARDSON: Yeah, you have.
 
CHALMERS: That's because they're our priority. The current tax policy of the current Government is to give 60 per cent of the benefit of their tax changes to the wealthiest 20 per cent of people. So we're not into that. We're not up for that. If there's tax cuts in a tight Budget, it has to be directed at low and middle income earners. They're the one who need it the most. But they're also, for the reasons we talked about before, the ones who are more likely to spend it in the economy, and that's what we need. So we'll see if the Government comes to the party. It's hard for us to react to, you know, speculations and stories that might be printed.
 
RICHARDSON: Take a payment like Newstart, which many people who are on it tell me is just not enough anymore. It just doesn't pay the bills. What's your policy on that? What do you do about Newstart?
 
CHALMERS: We've said for some time now we think it's too hard to live on Newstart as it currently is. What we said, what we've committed to, is that we need to deal with all the various interactions with Newstart. You'd appreciate, and the people who follow this policy area appreciate, it's not just Newstart. There's a whole bunch of other related payments, and we want to make sure that we consider all of the system in its totality. We think that's best done from Government, rather than from Opposition. And so Linda Burney, who's our terrific spokeswoman on this issue, she's said that we'll have a proper review on coming to Government to get all the interactions right and see what might be affordable to do.
 
RICHARDSON: One of my worries is always single mums, who struggle. I hate that terrible view that people have of all these young women out in the western suburbs popping babies out so they can be on support. It's just rubbish. Single mums really do struggle, so I hope we keep thinking of them. Albo will tell you all about it. He knows a bit more about it than most of us. He lived that life as a kid.
 
CHALMERS: Yeah, and I grew up with just me and mum in the house as well, and a lot of my colleagues did.
 
RICHARDSON: Oh, I didn't know that.
 
CHALMERS: A lot of the colleagues did too. I think there's some kind of correlation to be honest, between being a Labor activist or a Labor politician and growing up that way. I think more broadly, that stereotype that you mention about people on social security, that's very troubling. The area that I grew up in, which I represent now around Logan City, that's always run down along the lines that you just did, and it's very disappointing and very upsetting. People are trying to do their best for their families in my experience, and we need to do what we can, what we can afford to, what we responsibly do to help people get on their feet; help them try to find work.
 
RICHARDSON: Does that work? I know that we have all these measures to try to get people who are on Newstart into a job, but you've got to have jobs around. At the moment, are there enough jobs around? That is really the big question. 
 
CHALMERS: There's two things going on in the jobs market, Richo. The headline unemployment rate around five per cent is not horrible. It's not terrific, but it's not horrible. But underneath that, there's a whole range of problems. There's an issue of underemployment, people who want to work or work more hours - there's almost two million Australians in that cart. They just can't get the work or the hours that they need or want. That's a really big problem. Wages are a big part of the story. So you've got to look at the labour market in its totality and not just one number or another. We do have a problem. We do need to grow the economy a different way. The model that the Government's relying on, which is to screw down wages at the bottom, shower money at the top end and hope it trickles down - that's a busted model. It's just not working. We've had slowing growth, as I said a moment ago. We need a different approach to growing the economy. My view is that you grow the economy from the bottom up. It's got to be people powered, inclusive growth. That means training people, improving their roads, improving their technology. It means tax cuts for people who are more likely to spend and invest and all of the issues that we've spent some time on tonight. That's how you grow the economy, not the way the current Government's going about it. And for these reasons, because we've got a good story to tell, and a good alternative set of policies, we're actually spoiling for a fight on the economy at this eleciton, Richo, which you wouldn't always say about the Labor Party up against the Liberal Party. We are absolutely itching for a fight on the economy. That's what we think the election should be all about. Wages principally, but the economy more broadly. And we are confident that we can win that argument.
 
RICHARDSON: I'll tell you what, you sound pretty good on it, mate. All the best. I'm going to have to leave it there because they're telling me it's time to go, but I really appreciate your time Jim and I've got to say, you put it so well. I hope you get on more shows like this, we need you on the telly. And I want to thank you very much, as always.
 
ENDS