TOM CONNELL:
Assistant Treasurer, Michael Sukkar joins me for more on this, thanks very much for your time. Just to start with; so, the original estimate of JobKeeper, $130 billion, just happened to be the same amount, almost exactly, as the amount Treasury thought it was getting with these errors on the form. Is that just an amazing coincidence?
MINISTER SUKKAR:
Well, I mean, Tom, these are two very distinct issues. So, the first estimate that Treasury put in place, that was the advice to Government on the JobKeeper program obviously occurred at a time when the coronavirus pandemic was certainly spreading at a much faster rate. We had, as the Treasurer has outlined this morning in an op-ed, we had growth rates of 22 per cent the week prior to JobKeeper being put in place. So, it was an estimate put in place at a time when clearly the health - the expectations of the health outcomes, were much worse. Now, the second point is, yes, there were businesses who over-estimated, or in some cases just made mistakes, on the number of employees that they disclosed when they were applying for the scheme, and in that sense, it fed into that overestimation. But in the end, this is a demand-driven program. It's going to support, we expect when all is said and told, about 3.5 million employees or 800,000 businesses and we should all be very grateful that the health outcomes have come in ahead of even some of our best expectations and that has meant that the economic consequences and the budget consequences, and of course the consequences for a program like JobKeeper, have been improved.
CONNELL:
Nonetheless, very recently in an interview, you said if only 3 million employees were covered by this program, which is about where we're at now coincidentally, there's more of a likelihood of wholesale changes. Seemingly, that's been ruled out already though. Why?
SUKKAR:
Well no, Tom. I was making the self-evident point that, at the time that we legislated the JobKeeper program, we put in place at the midpoint, a review that would be conducted by Treasury and I was referring to that review. And of course, that review will take into account a whole range of factors including the number of people that have registered. So, that was just a very self-evident point that I was making there. In this instance, we – Treasury – will undertake a review of how the scheme is operating. It's one of the largest schemes ever put in place, so you can understand why that would happen. I think, in the end, it's pleasing news for our country that the health consequences, and the health outcomes, have been so much better than even some of our best expectations just 10-12 weeks ago and that it is flowed into better outcomes for the size of this program. As I have said and as the Treasurer has said, this just means we have to borrow less money, that is good news for Australian taxpayers. But having said all that, the JobKeeper program, Tom, is there to support every business that has a – well a very large business, that has a reduction of 50 per cent in turnover or a smaller/medium business, a 30 per cent reduction – and their eligible employees, should they qualify. It is a very large scheme, notwithstanding the fact it's been revised.
CONNELL:
Just on that, you presented in this interview a hypothetical which essentially now turns out to be true. Now at the end of that you said there is a more of a likelihood of wholesale changes. Is that still true? Is there more of a likelihood of right now of wholesale changes?
SUKKAR:
Well Tom, you’ve got me on your program so you can ask me the questions directly without going back into former transcripts. What I was making very clear then – and I’m very happy to make that point clear again – is that at the halfway point of this program, Treasury was always going to conduct a review. They will conduct a review and obviously, in the context of the program, a range of factors will be taken into account including the number businesses that qualify and that register, the number of employees that are covered but importantly, what has become very clear over this time – and this has moved very quickly – is that even some of our best expectations of the health outcomes have been exceeded by reality. Now any good program would flexibly move with that as the JobKeeper program has. So, in some senses, Tom, it should be unsurprising that the program comes at a clip, a bit better than expected because the health outcomes have been so much better.
CONNELL:
And on that prospect when this review happens, do you think it would be fair enough to consider cohorts such as people at universities, casuals that weren't tied to an employer for at least twelve months who of course, are excluded the moment. Should that be an open question as whether they could be included?
SUKKAR:
Well no, Tom, I mean we’ve made clear that those sorts of parameters have been set, they have been put in place. Again, if you work for an eligible organisation that's had the requisite drop in turnover and you're a full-time, part-time or long-term casual employee, you qualify. So, those parameters are set, there was a lot of work that went into that. They cover what we expect, all said and done, some 3.5 million employees so not a small scheme by any measure, Tom. And again, I would just say, let's look at JobKeeper in the context of the suite of policies that the Government has put in place. If you're somebody who's lost your job or is otherwise unable to work, you will be able to access a JobSeeker which – with the Coronavirus Supplement – is about $1,100 a fortnight. We've obviously put in place early access to superannuation. We’ve put in place targeted payments to households. So, JobKeeper – a very important part of the entire response of the Government – is not the total picture. You can’t really talk about JobKeeper without considering it in the broader context…interrupted.
CONNELL:
I understand what you're saying about JobKeeper and JobSeeker, for the individual it doesn't make a huge difference. It can make a huge difference for universities. So, another line from the Treasurer is that ‘we had to draw the line somewhere, as you can understand this is a major call on the public purse’. The point again here is there’s more available on the public purse if wanted. The decision now from the Government not to include, for example, universities and those casuals, that's a deliberate one, isn't it, it's not about a limitation of the public purse? That's just a policy decision?
SUKKAR:
Well, Tom, there are a range of areas whether it’s our health response and the work that Greg Hunt has so successfully done on supporting the states build up their ICU capacity, the health response and all these responses are taken into account to some degree, pessimistic assumptions of where the coronavirus pandemic would go, and I think Australians would expect us to take that approach, to make sure we got out health system ready for what was potentially a devastating circumstance and equally, the economic response has tried to match that. In the end, Tom, just because we have been so successful with the health response, that that has flowed into the economic and budget outcomes, I think in some respects should be unsurprising. Three months ago, Tom, if you and I were talking about the sorts of health outcomes we’ve had, I think most people would have that was a very rosy and optimistic view. That is where we find ourselves and therefore that’s where the JobKeeper program has found itself too.
CONNELL:
That’s very true and I think a lot of credit goes to the Government for that. We are nearly out of time but very briefly, the instant asset write-off, that’s set to end on 30 June. Is there a strong consideration for extending that in some form?
SUKKAR:
Look, there’s a whole host of measures. Obviously, we put in place the instant asset write-off, we increased the thresholds, increased the organisations and size of businesses that could access them in order to try and support businesses as much as possible to make those investments. We have obviously shown a long-term commitment to the instant asset write-off in each of our budgets, and all I would say to you, Tom is that of course, we are considering everything in what is a very quick and evolving economic circumstance.
CONNELL:
It is, I’ll put my editorial on that, so perhaps watch this space. Assistant Treasurer, Michael Sukkar, always appreciate your time, thank you.
SUKKAR:
Good on you Tom, thanks.