MICHELLE GRATTAN:
Jim Chalmers, the economic argument about this Budget has come down to whether it will or will not add to inflation. A number of economists say it will, but you strongly reject that. Can you just take us through briefly your argument about why those economists are wrong.
JIM CHALMERS:
Well, first after all there’s a lot of economists who have my view, including the considered advice of the Treasury. And the reason for that is because what we’ve done is we’ve designed the cost-of-living package in particular, to be particularly cognisant of the inflationary pressures in the economy. It’s spread out over four years – not all of the money hits the economy at once. And if you think about the next year, which is the year that the Opposition is focused on, a big chunk of the money we’re spending next year is the funding for the programs which are obviously ongoing but weren’t funded in an ongoing way. There’s also the impact of the small business tax breaks and some other reasons. So, overall, our Budget is designed to take some of the edge off these cost-of-living pressures, not add to the inflationary pressures in the economy, and you can see that in the Treasury’s forecasts.
GRATTAN:
So you’re confident that the Reserve Bank will think that you’ve helped it, not hindered it in its push to contain inflation?
CHALMERS:
Well, I’m always careful, as you know, Michelle, I don’t want to put words in the Reserve Bank Governor’s mouth in particular, they take their decisions independently. But obviously I wouldn’t be handing down a Budget that made their job more difficult. And in the context of the energy plan, the energy relief payments and some of the other measures in the Budget, we’re going out of our way to make their job easier.
GRATTAN:
Now, in the Budget you’ve increased JobSeeker and related payments by a small amount. Do you see this as a first step only in raising these payments? You know you’ll have more advocacy from your inclusion advisory group next year, because that’s an ongoing exercise?
CHALMERS:
Two quick things about that, I mean, first of all, having just handed down a Budget with an increase to the base rate of JobSeeker and the associated payments - and I’m not flagging what we might do in 364 days’ time in the next Budget or whenever it is - but the second point I’d make is that as a Labor government – and the Prime Minister makes this point repeatedly – we’re always looking to do what we can to help people, but we do that within the constraints of a really responsible government and a really responsible Budget. And I think the overwhelming story out of this Budget is the fact that we’ve been able to be responsible and compassionate at the same time.
GRATTAN:
Now, of course, we always seem to return to the stage three tax cuts. We’ve had two Budgets now where there’s been pressure to which the government hasn’t responded to refashion those tax cuts. I know you say you’ve got no plans to do this, but can we take this as a never-ever pledge that they’re definitely here to stay?
CHALMERS:
Well, the point that I would make about that, Michelle, is similar to the point I’ve made all the other times I’ve been asked, including at the National Press Club after the Budget – and that is, changing these tax cuts wasn’t even part of our deliberations in this Budget. And our position hasn’t changed. That’s why the Budget doesn’t reflect any change. And they come in in more than a year’s time, but it hasn’t been something that we’ve been contemplating. I get asked from time to time from both directions – people want me to either guarantee it or they want me to say that they we will abolish them. We haven’t changed our position despite all the pressure coming at us from both directions. We think it’s important that you return bracket creep, particularly for people on lower and middle incomes - I said that at the Press Club as well. And we need to remember that these tax cuts kick in 45 grand, and we’ve always supported tax relief for people on modest incomes.
GRATTAN:
You’d always have the option of going to an election to promise to do something later, of course.
CHALMERS:
I’m not speculating about that. We haven’t changed our position. We’ve got a Budget which has done as much as we can, frankly, for the most vulnerable people, the people on the lowest incomes, and I’m proud of that.
GRATTAN:
You’ve been a bit sensitive today when people have pointed out that the Budget doesn’t have anything particularly special for middle-income, mortgage-stressed people. Why do you refute that proposition?
CHALMERS:
I don’t feel like I’m especially sensitive about it, but I do think it’s complete and utter rubbish. And the reason I think that is because we’ve been really careful in prioritising the most vulnerable. We haven’t neglected middle Australia. For example, big changes to bulk billing, a centrepiece of the Budget. A lot of people with kids under 16 will benefit from that right up and down the income scale. Cheaper early childhood education. We’ve actually copped a lot of flak for being too kind to middle Australia in our early childhood policies. They kick in on the 1st of July. Energy efficiency measures, the training package, the home guarantee, there’s a whole bunch – there are a whole bunch of policies in the Budget for middle Australia. It’s just that the focus of a lot of the commentary has been what we’re doing for the most vulnerable people. That’s a good thing from my point of view, we are doing what we can there but that doesn’t mean we’re neglecting middle Australia.
GRATTAN:
The Budget forecasts some 15 billion in savings from the National Disability Insurance Scheme. That’s a big amount of money. What will be involved, and do you think people on the scheme will be alarmed because this is a particularly delicate area for obvious reasons.
CHALMERS:
Look, it is. I acknowledge that. And that’s why both in the Budget speech and in the speech the following day I’ve gone out of my way to say that our objective here – our number one objective – is to make sure that people are getting the care that they need and deserve and that was intended when we designed the scheme in the first place. But we need to get a handle on some of these increasing costs in the system. And Bill Shorten has been doing a terrific job working with the NDIA and the sector and others, and Anthony Albanese with the state and territory leaders to try and moderate the growth in the program, not because we want to cut it for its own sake but because we want to make sure we’re getting value for money for people who need it and rely on it.
GRATTAN:
But you’re pointing to these savings, and that inquiry into the scheme hasn’t even reported – won’t report for a few months yet.
CHALMERS:
But, I mean, as you would appreciate from – you know, you would have seen some of these processes before, there’s often kind of iterations, there’s often engagement with the review panel as it continues its work. And what we saw – what we would have seen in the Budget is about a $17 billion increase in the cost of the NDIS. There’s about $15 billion of savings that were able to be found to moderate that growth.
GRATTAN:
That’s pretty huge.
CHALMERS:
Well, I think it shows –
GRATTAN:
15 out of 17.
CHALMERS:
Well, I think it shows that if you put the effort into it, making sure that every dollar goes to the people who need it in the scheme, you can make the scheme more sustainable. You can put it on a more sustainable footing. That’s what I want to see, because I believe in the NDIS. I want it to be here to stay, and in order for it to be here to stay we’ve got to moderate some of these costs.
GRATTAN:
As Treasurer you give the impression that you’ve been much influenced by working for a Treasurer. And as a staffer, of course, you went through the Labor government’s trauma with its resources tax. In undertaking changes announced in this Budget to the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax, you treated the sector really very much with kid gloves. You’ve engaged with that industry. How much were you influenced by your own experience before?
CHALMERS:
I think everybody is in one way or another. I like to think that I’ve got my eyes forward in the job that I want to do and not trying to –
GRATTAN:
But you’ve got a few scars from the past.
CHALMERS:
I think everyone does, from their own experiences. I don’t want to pretend that I haven’t learned a lot in that pretty remarkable apprenticeship that I was fortunate to have. I mean, nobody’s come to this job –
GRATTAN:
Don’t mention tax inquiry.
CHALMERS:
Well, nobody’s come to this job with the kind of apprenticeship that I had for it, and I’m grateful for that. And most days I reflect on something I’ve learned, as people would in all walks of life in their work. But I try and look forward. I want to make my time in this job really count, and one of the things that I’m pleased about in extracting $2.4 billion of extra tax sooner out of offshore LNG projects -yes I went about it in a consultative way, that’s the tone that Anthony Albanese sets for his government. That’s his expectations of us. If you can get a good outcome from working with people rather than against them, then I would have thought the onus is on all of us in all of our portfolios to try.
GRATTAN:
Now, you’re celebrating a surplus for this financial year, although there are a couple of months to go.
CHALMERS:
You won’t be seeing any Back in Black mugs or anything from me, Michelle, or any self-congratulation. There’s good reasons to be cautious.
GRATTAN:
Just fingers crossed. But the Budget then projects deficits in the later years. But I’m just wondering whether there might be not a trick here but some optimism that’s not reflected in those figures – in other words, is it not possible, certainly next financial year, that with the savings, with the stream of revenue that’s still to come you could, in fact, get a surplus next financial year?
CHALMERS:
Well, I’m not prepared to pre-empt that, and I don’t want to get ahead of ourselves. And I think there are genuinely good reasons to be cautious and careful and conservative, including, the history of my immediate predecessor that I just joked about. There is no point over promising and under delivering here. I’d rather avoid that.
GRATTAN:
But you might over deliver after the under promising?
CHALMERS:
Well, it remains to be seen what happens with the labour market, what happens with commodity prices and a range of other influences on the Budget. But I think there’s a good reason to be cautious and conservative, and that’s what I’m being.
GRATTAN:
Now, I just want to finish on the labour market, and something that I asked you earlier at the Press Club, because I think it’s important and something our listeners would be interested in. The Budget does not focus much attention, even with this tight labour market, on getting the long-term unemployed into jobs. What priority are you giving this? What more can you do about it? And what’s your thinking ahead?
CHALMERS:
Yeah, very important priority; very, very high on our list. And one of the reasons I’m so proud of the place-based initiatives for communities where we’ve had entrenched disadvantage and intergenerational long-term unemployment is we need to think differently about the communities, frankly, like the one I grew up in and the one that I represent now.
GRATTAN:
Just explain that place-based community program.
CHALMERS:
So there are programs around Australia which find the communities with a lot of disadvantage and they try and apply a hyperlocal approach with great local leaders backed by the Commonwealth Government to try and break the cycle of intergenerational disadvantage. And it involves the philanthropic sector, it involves all of the community organisations, support from all three levels of government. And what I’ve seen in my own community, a program called Logan Together and a guy called Matthew Cox, who’s been central to all my thinking on this, is if we get a good model and we can apply it to other communities like Logan around Australia, we give ourselves a chance of breaking this cycle so that we have fewer long-term unemployed people. And so we intervene early in people’s lives and all of these sorts of things that are really important. So that’s part of the thinking. You’ve asked me before about employment services. That’s important too. Surely we can do better there. I mean, surely. And so we’ve got an Employment White Paper. My colleague Julian Hill and others are doing a heap of work at the committee level to see if we can do that better. Tony Burke is in charge of that as the Employment Minister, and so I’d happily work very closely with him to see if we can make improvements there. But I think the overall objective is really important. When we’ve got unemployment three and a half per cent, even if it gets to four and a half per cent on the Budget forecasts, we need to do a much better job of actually hooking people up with the opportunities of a growing job-creating economy. Employment services, the Employment White Paper, the place’s based programs, the participation agenda we have around early childhood education, all of these things are important. We’ve done a heap of work, but there will be more to do.
GRATTAN:
Jim Chalmers, thanks very much for talking with us today.
CHALMERS:
Thanks for the opportunity, Michelle.