PATRICIA KARVELAS:
Jim Chalmers is the Federal Treasurer and joins us this morning. Treasurer, welcome.
JIM CHALMERS:
Good morning, Patricia, thank you.
KARVELAS:
The ACTU are making industry‑wide bargaining a centrepiece of their pitch for this Jobs Summit. Should unions be allowed to negotiate deals on pay and conditions with multiple employers at once across entire sectors?
CHALMERS:
Our view Patricia, as you know, is that there's something broken in the enterprise bargaining system because it's not delivering that strong, responsible, sustainable wages growth that we need to see but which has been absent from our economy for the best part of a decade now. If there are ideas about getting wages moving again, they belong at the summit. We're not naive about this issue being contentious. We're not surprised that there are different views about the best way to improve the enterprise bargaining system. And we welcome the contribution of all sides in the lead up to the summit, at the summit itself and afterwards as well.
KARVELAS:
You haven't expressed in that answer, with respect, a view about the proposal. Innes Willox says it's a retrograde step ‑ a 1960s economy kind of idea. Do you agree with Innes Willox or does it deserve to be considered by the Government?
CHALMERS:
I wouldn't use the same words that Innes has used, but I welcome his input in the same way as I welcome the input of the unions and the employer groups. As I said to you, I think the last time we had a yack about this last week or the week before, it would be strange to have a summit where we insisted on some kind of unanimous pre‑agreed view going into it. We're not naive about how contentious this is. We're not surprised that people have got different views about it. And the job ‑ in this instance for Tony Burke, the relevant minister who will lead the discussions in this part of the summit ‑ is to see where there is some common ground, if it exists, and also tease out some of the other issues as well. And that will be the case across a whole range of issues important to our labour market. This is not the only one that will be teased out next week.
KARVELAS:
Okay, but at this stage you say if there can be agreement. You've seen the proposal and you've seen the response. There is no agreement. We're going into this summit and there's a stalemate on this issue.
CHALMERS:
One of the heartening things about this summit is that people have engaged in genuine dialogue. Before the summit, ministers and backbenchers have conducted something like 65 different roundtables already. I want to thank the unions, I want to thank the employer groups and peak business groups, the community groups and others who've participated in a spirit of goodwill and good faith in that conversation. That conversation has a way to run yet. In different ministers' portfolio areas, there are some issues which are relatively easy to agree and some issues, like this one, which are a bit more contentious. But we're not in the business of trying to limit the discussion at the summit. We know that enterprise bargaining is not delivering. Different people have got different ideas about how to improve it, and we welcome them all.
KARVELAS:
Okay, so you're welcoming them all but you say that this is incredibly difficult to do. ACTU Secretary Sally McManus was on 730 last night where she expressed that if you want to get wages up ‑ which actually was a promise you made at the election ‑ that this is the way to deliver it. Do you agree with that premise that this is actually the most obvious way ‑ that's how she describes it ‑ to deliver wages growth?
CHALMERS:
On the issue of multi‑employer bargaining, specific issues, that's something for Tony Burke to engage with specifically. But I do share the broad view that one of the reasons why we haven't seen the wages growth that we want to see in our economy for the best part of a decade is because enterprise bargaining is broken. It's not delivering as it's intended to do because too many Australians are going backwards even in times where we've seen strong business profits. And we've seen the economy performing in a way that's got unemployment at three and a half per cent nationally. So we want to reattach the link between national economic success and people's ability to earn enough to feed themselves and provide for the people that they love. That's our objective. People will have different views about how we get there. We welcome those views. And Tony Burke will do his job at the summit in leading that discussion just like other ministers will lead discussions in other areas.
KARVELAS:
Are you worried that the summit might be a bit of a fizzer?
CHALMERS:
I'm not, Patricia, because I've seen the spirit of goodwill that exists. I'm not naive about it. I don't expect unanimity. There will not be unanimity at the Jobs Summit. There'll be areas of common ground. There'll be other more contentious areas. But the thing that I have found really heartening ‑ in fact, I have found it inspiring ‑ is people's willingness to engage. People recognise we've had this wasted decade of missed opportunities and needless conflict and all of this complacency. And there's a change of mindset within the country that says let's at least try and find the areas where there is sufficient common ground for the government and the country to move forward together. That's what the Jobs Summit is about. It won't be possible in every area. Nobody going to the Jobs Summit will get absolutely everything that they want but it's worth the effort. I think the engagement that we have had so far is proof of that.
KARVELAS:
So let's get to some specifics: women, women, women. Women are an untapped resource, which you've said many times. it's not new to you. In our economy, they are under‑utilised. Are you prepared to bring forward the start date for your changes to the childcare system to January 1 next year to boost women's workforce participation? Is that on the table?
CHALMERS:
Obviously we're up for a conversation about that, Patricia, like we are across all of these other issues. But we need to be conscious of the budget constraints, the fact that we have a trillion dollars in debt and it would cost a substantial amount to bring it forward. And there may be other issues around our ability to stack the system up in time as well. But obviously ‑
KARVELAS:
But you're considering it at the moment?
CHALMERS:
People will have views about it. I have been considering it, is the truth of it, but there are substantial costs associated with it and there may be some operational difficulties as well that we need to be conscious of. But we also need to remember that even bringing this on from 1 July as we intend to do will have a substantial impact on making it easier for newer parents, especially women, to return to work if they want to. If we want to get wages moving again, which is our overarching objective, we need to make it easier for people to work more and earn more if they want to. We need to skill them up for higher wage opportunities as well, because productivity is ‑ in the end of it ‑ about investing in people and their abilities. These are all parts of the things that we are considering to get wages moving again in a way that suits everybody.
KARVELAS:
Of course, it would be a higher price tag. That's how it works if you brought it forward. You said you have been considering it and thank you for being honest about that. Sometimes in interviews, you don't get that kind of honesty, which is frustrating, so thank you. So are you asking your own department to look at it ‑ and obviously, there's another department that's involved ‑ to look at ways to try to see if you can implement that given that is such a big choke on the economy ‑ women's workforce participation?
CHALMERS:
I don't want to give Australian parents false hope here. The reason that I was upfront with you about the fact that when we came to government, we obviously had a conversation ‑ Jason Clare, Anne Aly and others ‑ about the best time to start this. But I want to be upfront with your listeners, Patricia, the cost is most likely prohibitive and there are operational issues as well. But I wanted you and your listeners to know that when we came to government we're obviously considering the best and most responsible way to implement our policies. And the timing of those policies is obviously part of that.
KARVELAS:
Are you considering the call from the New South Wales Government and business groups for low‑skilled visa category?
CHALMERS:
That again is something that will come up. We have had some discussions about it and some of these specific policy areas are a matter for Clare O'Neil, Andrew Giles and Brendan O'Connor. We have heard obviously that there are suggestions around the so‑called TSMIT, the skilled migration income threshold, which is designed to make sure that we're not undercutting Australian wages as we responsibly bring people in to fill genuine skill shortages. I think that there is a place for a conversation about the best level that that is set at. It hasn't been changed since 2013. We don't want to see local wages undercut. We do have to balance that against considerations in the care economy and elsewhere, as others have said. There are a range of mechanisms and levers in the migration system and in the skills system, which the relevant ministers will look at. Our view is that there is a role for migration in filling genuine labour shortages but not as a substitute for training more Australians for more opportunities.
KARVELAS:
Okay, new research from the Everybody's Home advocacy group has found increased rents in regional areas are contributing to unfilled job vacancies. Are you open to the Greens' proposal for a nationwide two‑year rent freeze?
CHALMERS:
That's not something that we've been working on, but we do accept that a big part of the inflation problem in our economy is skyrocketing rents. The point that you just referenced, I hear all through regional Queensland. I was in Rockhampton, not that long ago, where they were talking about their ability to fill these skills shortage being hampered by the lack of available housing. There's a national housing shortage as well. That's why we've got a Housing Australia Future Fund, which is about building more affordable homes. It's why I'm working with the superannuation industry and the states to see if we can build more stock because at the end of the day what we're seeing in the rental market, which is so difficult for people to deal with, is a reflection of an absence of rental stock. We need to start dealing with that, and we will.
KARVELAS:
You told a super roundtable this week that you want funds to invest in nation‑building projects like clean energy and affordable housing. But doesn't this go against the purpose of super which is to provide the best returns for Australians for their retirement income? What gives government the right to dictate super investment?
CHALMERS:
I think that view that you've put misunderstands the point that I was making. The point that I was making, Patricia, is that there are a number of examples now in our economy where the interests of fund members ‑ workers, the interests of funds, the interests of the budget, the interests of the national economy, are in many ways intertwined, if not inseparable. If we can find ways to get good returns for Australian workers in their super accounts from investing in areas where we obviously need investment ‑ housing and the energy transition are just two examples of that ‑ then we can find these win‑wins. The critics of that position are deliberately misrepresenting my view. I'm not for one minute saying that we should trade off returns for members ‑ that is the purpose of the superannuation system to deliver that decent retirement. It shouldn't be beyond us to find ways to do that while we invest in our national priorities. We've got a housing shortage. We've got the need to invest in cleaner and cheaper energy and how we transmit it and all the rest of it. The superannuation industry understands, the banks understand that, I think the Australian people would support that. We just need to do the work to find the best way to do it.
KARVELAS:
Jim Chalmers, many thanks for your time this morning.
CHALMERS:
Thanks for your time, Patricia.