Sally Sara:
The Treasurer Jim Chalmers is my guest in the studio this morning. Treasurer, welcome back to Radio National Breakfast.
Jim Chalmers:
Thanks very much, Sally. I think all the other times have been on the phone, so it’s nice to see you in the flesh.
Sara:
It’s good to have you here. The Deputy PM Richard Marles is flying to Washington DC. What’s the federal government’s plan if Donald Trump were to go ahead on his threats of universal tariffs? What would that – what would the government do?
Chalmers:
First of all, I think it’s important to acknowledge these are big developments out of the US, but they’re not a big surprise. These tariff changes were flagged in one way or another during the election campaign recently. And so we expected big changes out of a new administration, but we’re confident in our ability to navigate those changes. We are well placed, we are well prepared. And we have a very different economic relationship with the Americans than some of those other countries that have been their focus in the last few days. For example, the Americans run quite a substantial trade surplus with us. They enjoy tariff‑free access to our markets. And so the point that we have been making and will continue to make to American friends is that we can find a way to make sure that this key economic relationship between 2 great countries can continue to be a mutually beneficial one.
Sara:
Have you done any modelling? Has the government done any modelling on if tariffs are imposed on Australia from the US?
Chalmers:
We have. We actually did a bunch of work with the Treasury and other colleagues before the election, anticipating either outcome. And I’ve had the ability to brief my colleagues on a number of occasions now on some of that sort of work. And the broad conclusion out of that work is that Australia is a big beneficiary of open, global trading. We are a very trade exposed economy. It means that we’re not immune when there are escalating trade tensions. But we are pretty well placed to navigate them.
And there are 2 separate issues here, tariffs applied directly to our economy is one thing. More broadly there’s an issue around escalating trade tensions. We won’t be immune from that, but we’re pretty confident that we can withstand it.
Sara:
Would Australia retaliate with trade restrictions if the US imposes tariffs on us?
Chalmers:
I’m not going to get into that or those kind of hypotheticals. What we have shown is a willingness to work with all American administrations, including this new one. I think it augers well for the relationship that Penny Wong has already had a conversation with her counterpart in person, Richard Marles will be having a conversation with his counterpart in person. I’ve already met the Treasury Secretary before the election. I think all of that augers well for our ability to make our case for why this relationship, economic relationship, between our 2 countries is mutually beneficial and very different to the relationship that America has with Canada or Mexico or China.
Sara:
To another matter: Peter Dutton’s lunches for small business, the Parliamentary Budget Office modelled a similar policy, found it would cost around $250 million in the first 2 years. What’s your number?
Chalmers:
We asked Treasury to cost the announced policy from the Coalition. And the broad summary is this, Peter Dutton wants Australian workers to pay for their bosses’ long lunches, and the bill will run to billions of dollars. We know that now. $1.6 billion a year if only one‑eighth of what is eligible is claimed. If everything is claimed it goes to more than $10 billion a year.
Sara:
But that’s unlikely?
Chalmers:
It remains to be seen. The best estimate the Treasury has provided us is $1.6 billion a year. So Peter Dutton’s long lunches for bosses policy will smash a hole in the budget. It means that Australian workers are footing a billion‑dollar bill for their bosses’ long lunches and entertainment. And this is precisely why Peter Dutton hasn’t come clean on the costs of his policy or what he needs to cut to pay for it.
Sara:
With the numbers that you’ve had put together, how many businesses is that based on and how much are you assuming that each business is claiming?
Chalmers:
So there are 4 million businesses, only 2.6 million eligible are trading. And so we’ve used the 2.6 million, and the $1.6 billion a year is based on them claiming about one‑eighth of what they are eligible for. As I said before, if every eligible business claims the maximum – and they might – the cost goes to more than $10 billion a year.
This is why Peter Dutton hasn’t released the costing of his own policy. Ordinarily, that’s what responsible Oppositions would do. He hasn’t done that on this occasion, and now we know why. He would blow a huge hole in the budget just to have Australian taxpayers foot the bill for long lunches and entertainment for bosses. There are better, more responsible ways to support small business. That’s why we’re helping them with their electricity bills. It’s why we’ve put in place an instant asset write‑off to make it easier for them to invest in their businesses. We’re helping with their cybersecurity and in a range of other ways.
Sara:
Do you acknowledge it could be beneficial to the hospitality sector, which has been hit pretty hard during COVID and beyond?
Chalmers:
It remains to be seen. It’s not clear from what the Opposition said, how they would prevent it from being rorted, how they’d be clearer about eligibility. What we do know is that it would smash a multi‑billion dollar hole in the budget. And there are basic questions still unanswered, and they should answer those questions. We’ve found better, more responsible ways to support small business. We know how important and valuable they are, and if the Coalition was serious about wanting to support small business they wouldn’t have opposed our energy bill relief for them.
Sara:
You’re listening to Radio National Breakfast. My guest in the studio is the Treasurer Jim Chalmers. Treasurer, we need to move through a few different issues.
The Greens have written to the government offering a compromise deal to get some restrictions on gambling advertising passed before the election. Will you consider what they’re proposing?
Chalmers:
We always work constructively with the crossbench in areas of shared interest. We always do that. I haven’t seen the letter that you’re referring to, and primarily that will be a matter for Minister Rowland to go through it.
What I would say is that we take our responsibility to Australians very seriously when it comes to protecting them from the harms of online gambling, particularly young people. And we’ve done more than is usually acknowledged. We’ve banned the use of credit cards, we’ve established the mandatory ID verification, we’ve launched the national self‑exclusion register. And that is more online gambling reform than we have seen at any point in the last decade –
Sara:
– but it’s not the recommendations of the gamble reform committee, and particularly the wishes of Peta Murphy.
Chalmers:
Yeah and we continue to work through the recommendations of the Murphy inquiry, including when it comes to things like ads. And we know that there are people who would like us to go further and faster when it comes to gambling reform. But the government does already have a very substantial record of dealing with the harms of online gambling in all of the ways that I’ve run through.
Sara:
Why not get something done as opposed to nothing?
Chalmers:
Again, I haven’t seen what the Greens are proposing. Reluctant to comment on something I haven’t seen. Primarily and initially it will be a matter for Minister Rowland.
Sara:
On political donations, are you close to a deal with the Coalition to push this through?
Chalmers:
We’re trying to tackle the influence of big money across our democracy. And what the reforms are all about is more transparency and more integrity. I think this is a problem that needs to be dealt with. And so Minister Don Farrell is working in his characteristically considered and diligent way, speaking with members across the parliament to see if we can make progress here. But our intentions are really clear, we think buying money is a problem in our democracy. We want to tackle the influence of big money. We want to make the system more transparent. We want more integrity in the system. That requires the support of the parliament. It always has. And Don Farrell will continue to seek that support.
Sara:
Do you acknowledge your party has also been the beneficiary of big money?
Chalmers:
We’ve made it clear for some time now that we want the system to be more transparent. We’ve shown more of a willingness to declare more of these donations and we comply with the rules of the system. We want to change the rules. We want to crack down on big money in politics. I think most Australians, most of your listeners, would acknowledge that that is an issue, and we are trying to do something about it, and we need the parliament to support us.
Sara:
Treasurer, just finally, we’ll be speaking with Senators Jacqui Lambie and David Pocock shortly in the program. Why aren’t you willing to strike a deal with the crossbench rather than relying on the Coalition?
Chalmers:
On donations? I think that a change of this magnitude requires the broadest possible support. And I’ve got a lot of time for both of those senators, both terrific senators, and they will work through the issues in the usual way. But primarily this is about trying to attract as broad a support as we can. We don’t want to make a change which is unwound by a future Coalition government. We’re trying to get them done in a bipartisan way, and that’s what’s been guiding Don Farrell’s efforts.
Sara:
Treasurer, I know you’ve got a lot on this morning – thanks for coming into the studio. Thank you, again.
Chalmers:
Appreciate your time Sally, all the best.