Jim Chalmers:
I’m really grateful to the Prime Minister for the opportunity to serve as Australia’s Treasurer. Looking forward to being sworn in with my outstanding colleagues later this morning.
I’m especially looking forward to working with the absolutely first‑class Treasury portfolio team that Anthony has appointed. Daniel Mulino is an absolutely first‑rate person to have in our team, working closely with Andrew Leigh, Clare O’Neil, Anne Aly will bring a dynamism to the small business portfolio as well. This is an outstanding team of colleagues. I’m looking forward to working closely with them. They have a lot of intellectual horsepower, a lot of experience, a lot of energy, a lot of dynamism, as I said. And so looking forward to being sworn in.
The hard work has already begun. I think the first briefing I received after the election was at quarter to 7 in the morning, the Sunday morning after the election. And that’s because a big focus for me in the Treasury portfolio and for the government is navigating this global economic uncertainty at the same time as we continue to roll out our cost‑of‑living help and make our economy more productive over time as well, build more houses, get the energy transformation right. These are the priorities for me as Treasurer, but for the economic team more broadly, the Cabinet and the government as well.
We welcome the opportunity to work for the Australian people for another term with a big focus on the economy. The economy was front and centre in the election campaign, it will be front and centre in the second term, just like it was in in the first term. Our Albanese Labor government is defined by responsible economic management and people should expect that to continue.
Journalist:
You said you’re pretty keen to get those superannuation tax changes through. Initially when you put that legislation forward, it was to come into effect by July 1 this year, but the Prime Minister said that parliament won’t necessarily sit until late July. So, when would those tax changes come into effect?
Chalmers:
It’s not unusual for tax changes to be legislated after a start date, there are other instances of that. What I’ve said today is the same point that I’ve made repeatedly, really more or less since we first announced these changes more than 2 years ago now. This is a modest change which impacts a tiny sliver of the population, about half a per cent of people with balances over $3 million in their superannuation. It’s still concessional tax treatment, just slightly less concessional.
And it makes an important contribution to the budget, to priorities like strengthening Medicare, the tax cuts, building more homes. So it’s an important part of the budget as well. The government hasn’t changed its approach to it. We announced it more than 2 years ago. It’s been in the parliament for a long time now. It’s a modest change that impacts a tiny amount of people and still provides concessional tax treatment for people in super.
Journalist:
When you announced those tax changes a few years ago, did you expect the argument that’s happened since then? Did you expect it to generate the attention it has?
Chalmers:
I don’t get it raised with me much out and about in the community, and it wasn’t a big part of the election campaign. I know that it’s the obsession of a couple of newspapers, for example, and it’s an obsession of the Liberal Party. I understand that people have got views about policy changes. I’m respectful about that. I’m realistic about that. People have got views when you make changes. But it is a relatively modest change, impacts a very small amount of people. There are good reasons to go about it this way, and it helps to fund the country’s priorities. From time to time people will have different views about that, I don’t obsess about that, sometimes you have to take difficult decisions.
Journalist:
Mark Dreyfus – sorry, Ed Husic said last night that Mark Dreyfus’ dumping from the Cabinet was gratuitous and he should have been granted more dignity, do you agree?
Chalmers:
I do feel for those 2 guys, Mark and Ed, I respect them both and I understand how unhappy they would be. I think today will be a difficult day for them to see the colleagues sworn in at Government House. And so, Ed has a view about that, and he’s got a right to express his view. I think all of us understand his unhappiness about this, and he’s reflected that with his public comments.
Journalist:
Do you think Marles is a factional assassin?
Chalmers:
I don’t use those words to describe him. I work very closely with Richard. Richard is a very good Deputy Prime Minister. He works very hard for the people of Australia in his portfolio. And as Deputy Prime Minister, he works very closely with us in the Cabinet. And I wouldn’t use those words to describe him. But again, it’s not for me to kind of engage in a running commentary on Ed’s comments. I understand why Ed’s unhappy. I’d be unhappy too, if I was Ed and if I was Mark.
It was a messy week last week, but I want to assure people that the overwhelming focus of the government is on the economic challenges before us at a time of extreme global economic uncertainty and opportunity for Australia. This is what happens when you’ve got more good people than you have spots in the Ministry and in the Cabinet. People will miss out from time to time.
And this is the difference really between our team and our opponents. Our opponents are scratching around for a half‑credible person to lead them and can’t find one. We’ve got 60 or 70 or 80 people who could be good Ministers right away in our team. So, inevitably people will miss out and they’ll be unhappy about that. I do genuinely understand that. I do genuinely feel for them, particularly today.
Journalist:
Can I ask as well, are you considering or will you consider increasing the Jobseeker rate in this term again?
Chalmers:
That’s not something that we’re considering now, we’re rolling out cost‑of‑living help in other ways. It’s also important to remember, I think it’s frequently forgotten, that I did raise the Jobseeker rate, working with the colleagues. We have increased in a permanent way Jobseeker in addition to the indexation.
And when we can find room to help people with the cost of living we’ve shown an ability to do that in all 4 of our Budgets. Whether it’s the permanent increase to Jobseeker, the increases to Commonwealth Rent Assistance, the change we made for single parents, the energy bill rebates, the tax cuts, the efforts on the minimum wage. We’ve shown across the board a willingness to help people with the cost of living. That’s one way that we can do it and we have done it. But there are other ways as well.
Journalist:
Any tips for the Liberal leader?
Chalmers:
I think whoever wins the battle of the duds today, the Liberal Party will still be the party of lower wages, higher income taxes and nuclear reactors. And this choice that the Liberal Party room is being asked to make today is a choice between 2 of the 3 people most responsible for the debacle which was the last 3 years in the Coalition. Not just the campaign, but the 3 years. Sussan Ley and Angus Taylor shouldn’t be asking their colleagues for votes, they should be asking them for forgiveness. Sussan Ley and Angus Taylor are 2 of the co‑architects of one of the worst performances we’ve ever seen from a major political party.
Now in the last term they were asked to come up with a coherent, credible, costed economic policy and they weren’t able to do that. So, I think it’s strange and unfortunate that the Liberal Party is being asked to choose from these 2 who are as responsible as anyone for what we saw happen to the Coalition a couple of Saturdays ago.
Now, obviously we don’t underestimate our opponents. I don’t underestimate anyone, and I don’t accept this commentary that says that the next election is already determined. I think elections in Australia are typically close, the last one notwithstanding. And so, we will take seriously whoever they elect, we don’t underestimate our opponents but the Liberal Party is effectively choosing from the reserve grade team. And the last opposition was the dregs of the Morrison government and now this is the dregs of the dregs of the Morrison government. And so, I think it’s a very strange and unfortunate choice that the Liberal Party is being asked to make today.
Thanks very much.