JIM CHALMERS:
Really important day today, I’ll be introducing the Future Made in Australia legislation into the House of Representatives.
A Future Made in Australia is all about secure, well‑paid jobs and more opportunities in more parts of the country, and it’s about delivering a new generation of prosperity.
And the Future Made in Australia Act is all about imposing the necessary rigour and robustness on the public funding which will leverage the sorts of private investment that we need to see, and to make sure that that private investment when it flows, benefits our workers, our employers, our investors, and our local communities at the same time.
So I’ll be looking forward to introducing that legislation quite soon. It’s a very important day for the government and for the economy. And what it shows is we can do 2 things at once: we can roll out substantial, meaningful and responsible cost‑of‑living relief at the same time as we build a Future Made in Australia. And that’s really important.
And here the contrast couldn’t be clearer. You roll out cost‑of‑living relief with tax cuts and energy bill relief and cheaper medicines and pay rises and extra paid parental leave, not with more expensive nuclear reactors which will push up the price of energy.
And what unites, what the Coalition said yesterday, what they said about nuclear, what they said about migration, is that this divestiture policy is the same kind of shambles that we’ve come to expect from Peter Dutton and Angus Taylor.
There’s a common feature from these announcements. Peter Dutton always goes for the most divisive option; it divides his party and then he can’t explain the most basic details about his policy.
We’ve already got a substantial agenda when it comes to competition in our economy, including in the supermarket sector, the competition reforms, including the biggest merger reforms in half a century. We have empowered the ACCC in the supermarket sector.
We funded CHOICE so that there’s more price transparency so that people can find and follow better deals. We’ve toughened the Food and Grocery Code; we’ve made it mandatory.
We’ve dramatically increased the fines for the supermarkets who are doing the wrong thing. We have a whole broad suite of competition policy in our economy and in our supermarket sector.
Now the difference between us and the Coalition is we devise and implement our competition policy in a considered and a methodical way, relying heavily on the advice of the ACCC and others.
What we see with our opponents is the Nationals making it up as they go along, riding roughshod over the Liberals, rolling Angus Taylor once again like he’s been rolled on tax, and he’s been rolled on public funding for nuclear reactors as well. So this is the same kind of shambles as we saw with nuclear and with migration. They can’t explain the most basic details.
One of the reasons why the last 3 big reviews of competition policy hasn’t recommended we go down this path is because of the possible unintended consequences. If you made supermarkets sell, are they allowed to sell to another big rival? Does it mean they close down more stores in local communities? And does that mean less competition rather than more competition in local communities?
Not that long ago Jane Hume was saying that she was worried that divestiture wouldn’t decrease prices. She’s on the record as recently as April making that clear.
So we make our competition policy on the advice of the ACCC, not on the advice of the National Party riding roughshod over the Liberals.
JOURNALIST:
Are you happy then that this could be an election fought on energy and supermarkets?
CHALMERS:
We hope that this is an election fought on the choice between rolling out substantial cost‑of‑living relief and building a Future Made in Australia versus this un-costed and risky nuclear fantasy of Peter Dutton’s. That’s how I see the election shaping up.
When the election is on, people will have a choice between the Labor party which rolled out cost‑of‑living relief despite the Opposition’s opposition to that. They will see a choice between a Labor party building a Future Made in Australia based on making Australia a renewable energy superpower, or this nuclear fantasy and nuclear negativity from Peter Dutton, who can’t even tell us what his nuclear reactors will cost, what will be the impact on investor certainty. All of these key questions are unanswered when it comes to nuclear, divestiture, migration. There’s a real pattern here.
JOURNALIST:
The Coalition says manufacturers are struggling right now. How soon will it be before they see this future funding, a cent from it, to get projects kick‑started and when can we see projects begin?
CHALMERS:
First of all, this is not the only part of our economic policy, it’s an important part of our economic policy. And the biggest parts of it, the production tax credits kick in from 2027, we’ve made at that clear. They are the biggest part of the public funding to leverage all of this private investment. Some of the other investment kicks in a little bit earlier and we’ve laid all of that out in the Budget.
But it’s a bit rich, I think, of our political opponents who have absolutely no plan for the future, they have absolutely no alternatives apart from nuclear, in the third year of a 3‑year parliamentary term.
We’ve got an agenda here. We’re rolling it out in a considered and a methodical way. Cost‑of‑living relief from this week and a Future Made in Australia to build that new generation of prosperity that we want to see for this country, its workers, its businesses and its communities.
JOURNALIST:
Zoe Daniel is leading a campaign today calling for Labor to better fund frontline services and sexual violence services. Would you consider doing this?
CHALMERS:
We’ve got funding already rolling out in some of those areas, but of course we listen very closely and very respectfully to Zoe Daniel, who to her credit, has been campaigning for these sorts of outcomes since she’s been elected to this place.
There’s substantial new funding in the Budget in this broad area but we know that one of the challenges when it comes to frontline services is finding the workers. We made funding available for the states to employ more frontline workers in these really important frontline services, and we’ve got to make sure that we fill those roles.
I know from my own local community, places like the Centre for Women in my local community, I know how important their work is. We want to support that work and part of that means making sure that when we do make funding available, that we employ the workers to do this really important work.
JOURNALIST:
The consumer data right legislation, I believe it’s before the Senate this week, is that something you want to see passed this week or is there more work to do on it from the government’s perspective?
CHALMERS:
Well I think the story that you’ve got on the front of your paper today from the ABA is a reminder that there are substantial challenges when it comes to the consumer data right, and I think some of that analysis makes that clear. We inherited the consumer data right from our predecessors, as you know. They designed something which has very high compliance costs and has had very low take up. I think that’s really clear.
And we will work methodically through those sorts of issues in a legislative sense but also working with the various stakeholders to see if we can get it right.
JOURNALIST:
A Cabinet reshuffle, can we expect that pretty soon?
CHALMERS:
Well I’m not aware of that. That’s not something that I’ve been focussed on. That’s a matter for the Prime Minister to work out what jobs everybody does.
I think a remarkable feature of our government over the first 2 and a bit years has been the stability in our show. I think that’s been really important. It’s not unusual for governments from time to time to change people around in different roles, and when that happens that’s a matter for the Prime Minister and not for me.
JOURNALIST:
Is there any accuracy to Coalition speculation about a September election?
CHALMERS:
No, my expectation is that the government goes on the usual time frame. That’s certainly how I’m working. I’ve been asked a few times up and down this corridor about this question. It’s a matter for the Prime Minister at the end of the day, but that’s not something that we’re preparing for and it’s not something that I’m working towards.
JOURNALIST:
Fatima Payman talking to the Muslim vote and the preference whisperer, the Prime Minister last night made it pretty clear that’s not appropriate. I mean how much more does she have to do before she gets, you know, told to go?
CHALMERS:
A couple of things about that. Fatima Payman has chosen to put herself outside of the obligations that all of us sign up to as Labor members and senators. I think that’s really unfortunate. I would rather Fatima Payman be in the fold, frankly.
This path has been chosen by her, not for her. And the reason I think that’s really unfortunate is because we are a party of progress, not protest. One of the secrets to our success over more than a century now is that we believe in the power of collective action, and we believe that you make more progress, and you get more good things done when you act collectively rather than individually.
Fatima Payman has chosen to put herself outside the obligations that all of us sign up to, and when we run as Labor candidates and when we operate here as Labor members and senators. I’d hope that at some future point, subject to those obligations, that Fatima Payman could return to the fold. But at the end of the day that’s a matter for her.
JOURNALIST:
Is it possible though it takes too long and it’s too hard to do work from within the party that perhaps there needs to be some sort of change of party rules?
CHALMERS:
Well there’s no shortcuts here when you’re talking about some of these difficult issues. These are really crucial, really important issues of foreign policy and you don’t make foreign policy by responding to Greens motions on the floor of the Senate. You make good foreign policy through the hard work of elected governments. And I would prefer that Fatima Payman be part of that effort.
We all want to see peace in the Middle East, and we give ourselves the best chance of peace in the Middle East when elected governments do the hard work, and when we do that collectively here rather than individually, I think that offers us the best chance, and I’d rather Fatima Payman be part of that effort rather than set herself outside the obligations that she signed up to and we all signed up to.
JOURNALIST:
With Senator Payman talking directly to your opponents, isn’t it clear that she doesn’t want to work with the party to create change?
CHALMERS:
I think these are questions for Fatima Payman to answer. I’m not privy to her private thoughts about these sorts of things or to her private conversations about these sorts of things.
I respect all the members of our team and I’ve said that repeatedly. And, I think it’s really important to remember as there is all of this speculation, and you understandably are asking me questions about it, that this path has been chosen by her, not for her. It hasn’t been imposed on her.
I think we would like to see her subject to the obligations we all sign up to and back in the fold and working towards Labor policy in the Middle East. She has chosen a different path and that’s a matter for her to explain and defend.
JOURNALIST:
So should she go? Should she be expelled?
CHALMERS:
My preference is that Fatima Payman is part of our team, working collectively for progress and peace. That’s my preference. And I think that’s the preference, the overwhelming preference of members of our team.
When we get elected, we all sign up to these obligations and the Labor Party has been around for 130 plus years and one of the secrets to our success in making progressive change and getting things done and changing the country and the world for the better, is that we believe in collective action. We believe in the power of collective action, and we think that we get more done together than we get done alone.
These are the principles that we sign up to and these are the obligations we subject ourselves to as part of the Labor team. I would rather Fatima Payman be part of that team rather than outside that team. But again, it’s a path that has been chosen by her, not for her, and she can explain why.
Thanks very much.