PETER STEFANOVIC:
Treasurer, good to see you though. But when will the money from the funds start flowing on this?
JIM CHALMERS:
Well, there are different aspects of the Future Made in Australia package, $22.7 billion – the production tax credits begin in 2027 and they are the bulk of the proposal but some of the other funding comes in before that but I think Sussan Ley would have much more credibility on these sorts of issues if they announced how much their nuclear reactors would cost and that’s the difference really.
The legislation that I’ll introduce today is about a new generation of prosperity, it’s about good, secure, well‑paid jobs, and it’s about a Future Made in Australia and the bill that I introduce today will impose rigour and robustness on the public funding necessary to leverage all of the private investment that we will need to make sure that our workers and communities are the big beneficiaries of the global net zero transformation.
And so the choice here is between a Future Made in Australia and big investments in making Australia a renewable energy superpower, or the Liberals’ un‑costed nuclear fantasy which wouldn’t see a nuclear reactor built for the next 15 years, and when it is, it will push up power prices.
STEFANOVIC:
Speaking of pushing up, will this be inflationary as some in the past have feared?
CHALMERS:
No, of course not. Not all of this funding hits the economy at once, it’s a medium‑term and a long‑term plan to build a Future Made in Australia to make Australia an indispensable part of the global net zero transformation by leveraging our industrial, our energy, our resources and our strengths in skills and our attractiveness as an investment destination.
It’s a long‑term plan and it’s all about the next generation of prosperity for our country and it’s all about ensuring that the private investment that we’ll be leveraging will be good for workers and businesses, employers, investors and local communities.
STEFANOVIC:
Okay. So it goes through the House. Eventually it will go through the Senate. Does Fatima Payman’s absence make that a problem for you?
CHALMERS:
Well, I think there’s an assumption built into that question, Pete. Fatima Payman is abstaining this week from votes in the Senate and this legislation won’t hit the Senate this week, it will be introduced into the House of Representatives very shortly by me and a subsequent bill by Chris Bowen.
When it comes to Fatima Payman, she’s chosen to put herself outside the obligations that all of us sign up to as Labor MPs and Senators. I think that’s really unfortunate.
We are a party of progress, not protest, we are people who believe that we achieve more and make more progress when we act collectively rather than individually and so this path that Fatima Payman has chosen has been chosen by her, not for her, and my hope is that we can welcome her back into the fold at a time when she signs up to the obligations that all the rest of us have signed to.
STEFANOVIC:
Okay. So once Future Made in Australia goes to the Senate, you expect her to be in the Labor party?
CHALMERS:
Look, I don’t make any predictions or presumptions about that, Pete. These are decisions for Fatima Payman to make and explain and defend.
STEFANOVIC:
Okay.
CHALMERS:
My personal view is that we would achieve much more together collectively. Foreign policy is not made by Greens motions on the floor of the Senate, it’s made by good governments working diligently and I’d rather Fatima Payman be part of that effort.
STEFANOVIC:
Phil Coorey with an interesting piece yesterday, Treasurer – Anthony Albanese quietly implementing a shift in budget strategy allowing him to free up funds for election priorities. Does this set the scene for an early election?
CHALMERS:
Oh, no, Pete, this is part of the usual processes of government. You always try and work out what are your priorities and how can you afford to fund them and how can you sequence them and so from time-to-time we make decisions collectively, or the Prime Minister communicates those decisions to colleagues about how we prioritise and sequence our commitments. It’s not especially unusual. It happens to be the third year of a 3 year parliamentary term but really at every point we’ve tried to be as responsible as we can, we’ve tried to get the budget in much better shape, turning those big Liberal deficits into Labor surpluses, funding our priorities in the most responsible way and this is part of that effort.
STEFANOVIC:
Okay. Just a final one here before you go. The Coalition with a plan for divestiture. You’ve got a thought on that this morning?
CHALMERS:
This is the same kind of shambles as we saw with their nuclear policy and their migration policy. The common features here are Peter Dutton always goes for the most divisive option, it divides his party, and then he can’t explain the most basic details.
One of the reasons why the last 3 big reviews of competition policy and the last review of the Food and Grocery Code quite recently was reluctant to go down this path is because of the possible unintended consequences, forcing supermarkets to sell. Do they sell to another big rival, does it mean the closure of stores, does it mean less choice and therefore less competition in local communities? These are the sorts of details that they’re unable to provide and that’s what makes them a risky and dicey proposition, particularly on the economy.
STEFANOVIC:
We’ll leave it there, Treasurer. Appreciate your time as always though. Thank you.