Jim Chalmers:
I’m here with the Employment Minister, Amanda Rishworth, because we want to welcome some really positive wages outcomes in the wages data which was just released this morning. The wages price index grew by 0.8 per cent in the June quarter to be 3.4 per cent higher through the year. Real wages grew 1.3 per cent through the year to the June quarter 2025. This is the strongest annual real wages growth in about 5 years. This is the first time in a decade that we have seen 4 consecutive quarters of real wages growth above 0.7 per cent. The first time in a decade we’ve seen a run that strong. And these figures today, these real wages figures today, are the strongest in about 5 years. This shows that the Albanese Labor government is making meaningful progress when it comes to ensuring that more Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn. Really, one of the most important objectives of our economic plan is to make sure that Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn, and these figures today show that we are making meaningful progress.
This means that we have now seen 7 consecutive quarters of real wages growth. Remember when we came to office there had been 5 consecutive quarters of real wages falling. When we came to office, real wages were falling sharply, and we have been able to turn that around. Real wages are now growing strongly and in a sustained way over the course of the last 7 quarters. This is not accidental. This is part of the Albanese government’s economic plan to make sure that we get real wages growing again. So in that light, we’re very pleased with the progress that we’re seeing today in this data, and I’ll ask Amanda to say a few more things about that. Then I wanted to cover off on another couple of issues, then happy to take your questions.
Amanda Rishworth:
Thanks, Jim, and this is very encouraging news. We made an absolute pledge to end the Coalition’s deliberate design to suppress wages in this country, and we made a commitment that we would get wages moving again. What this data shows that Australians are enjoying real wages increases, and of course, the data also shows here that those increases, real wage increases, are both across the public and private sector. They are in all states and territories and across different industries. This demonstrates that we are seeing real wage increases across the broad economy, and this is good news.
Of course, one of the key areas that our government has been focused on is getting enterprise bargaining moving. Enterprise bargaining is good for employees, it’s good for employers, and it delivers real wages. The most recent enterprise bargaining data shows that we have the largest number of employees covered by enterprise bargains since the inception of this enterprise bargaining came in, in 1991. So, this is good news, and we will continue to work to ensure that we revitalise enterprise bargaining and ensure that we continue to push for real wages growth in this country.
Chalmers:
Thanks, Amanda. So this week is a really important week for the economy. Yesterday, we saw the third interest rate cut in the space of 6 months. Providing meaningful cost‑of‑living relief for millions of Australians who are still under pressure. We welcome that decision taken by the independent Reserve Bank, the third interest rate cut in 6 months, because it will take some pressure off the millions of Australians with a mortgage. Today’s very pleasing, very encouraging wages data should be seen in a similar light. If you look right across the board, we are making very welcome, very encouraging progress on some of the issues in our economy. We’ve got inflation down very substantially now. Interest rates are falling as a consequence. Unemployment has been very low. Real wages are growing strongly, the strongest in around 5 years. We’ve got the debt down, and we’re paying less interest on that debt as a consequence. And so we are making a lot of progress together in our economy, and this very encouraging real wages data is part of that progress today, as was the interest rate cut announced yesterday by the Reserve Bank.
Now all of this progress puts us in good stead, as we confront all of the economic uncertainty which surrounds us in the world and as we confront the big economic challenges in our economy and indeed in the global economy as well. Even with this progress on wages, we know that there’s more work to do. We know that people are still under pressure. The global environment is still uncertain. Growth in our economy is not what we need it to be. And we have some persistent structural issues in our economy as well, and productivity is the most important one. Productivity, making our economy more productive, is the best way to lift living standards over time and make people better off. It’s the best way to build on the progress that we’ve made, the substantial progress we’ve made in our economy, which is borne out by the real wages data that was released this morning.
Productivity is the major focus of the Economic Reform Roundtable. The roundtable is all about making our economy more productive and more resilient, and our budget more sustainable at the same time. The major focus is on productivity because we want to lift living standards, and we want people who work hard to be rewarded for their effort. That’s why real wages growth is so important. We want that to be an enduring feature of our economy, and part of that is making our economy more productive. That’s why we’re so focused on that as a government, not just next week but every week that we are in these positions. I wanted to say that as part of the engagement leading up to the roundtable we’re already seeing some very welcome progress on some of the issues that have been raised in the consultation.
I wanted to welcome the announcement by ASIC this morning that they will review a regulation called RG97. Now RG97 forces investors to declare their stamp duty costs when they’re making investment in housing. And that can act as a deterrent because it means that they are less competitive than other types of investors in the market. And so super funds and other institutional investors have a requirement placed on them that is not placed on other people in the market. It acts as a deterrent. This is an issue that has been raised with us for a little while now and as part of the investor roundtable that I convened with Daniel Mulino last week this issue was raised really by all of the institutional investors directly with the chair of ASIC, Joe Longo. And he has indicated today that ASIC will take a look at RG97.
Now, the reason this matters is because the Property Council has said that if this requirement was eased, it could mean an extra 35,000 homes built by institutional investors over the course of the next 5 years. So it has the potential to be a really important change. I wanted to thank Joe Longo and his colleagues at ASIC for agreeing to take a look at that and to make that announcement today. It has been an issue that has come up repeatedly in the very intense consultation we’ve been engaged in, in the lead up to the Economic Reform Roundtable. And it’s a good example of where working together we can identify regulation which is not serving its intended purpose. We can work with the regulators to act on some of that regulation where it’s appropriate to do so, and we can get a good outcome. So I wanted to thank Joe for doing that. I wanted to thank really all of the institutional investors that raised it with him and with me. They will have a look at it now. They’ll announce their progress in due course, but I think a very welcome development when it comes to building more homes in this country. Happy to take some questions.
We’ll go Phil and then here and then here and then here.
Journalist:
Minister Rishworth, in capacity as IR, just a two‑part question on the ACTU’s proposal today on a four‑day week. Can I get your views on that, and related to that, the business groups are a bit cranky because they were told they couldn’t talk about IR at next week's summit, it’s not on the agenda. Do you think it’s fair that the ACTU can put workplace relations on the agenda next week, and business can’t?
Rishworth:
Well firstly, I would say there’s been a lot of people putting a lot of ideas on the table. And I know the Treasurer, as well as myself and many other ministers, have welcomed those ideas. When it comes to flexibility in the workplace, our legislative changes that we made last year actually allow for the request of employees to make a flexible working arrangements and request to work flexibly. That includes compressed hours in 4 days. I know that a number of organisations have entered into enterprise bargaining where they’ve looked at 4 days. So we want to make sure that the industrial relations framework allows employers and employees to work on flexible arrangements as long as people don’t go backwards in their pay. And so of course, those arrangements are underway, and we will continue to work across the board when it comes to reinvigorating enterprise bargaining. That is where so many productivity gains can be made in the workplace. That’s what our laws have been about, and that’s what we’ll continue to focus on.
Journalist:
Thanks. Just on the roundtable, so you ruled out any changes to the tax system in this term that haven’t already been taken to the electorate. Is it your view that regulation – mentioning the ASIC change today – is it your view that regulation is an easier lever to pull in terms of improving productivity than tax?
Chalmers:
First of all, the point that the Prime Minister and I have made about tax is that we haven’t changed our policies when it comes to tax and the focus is on delivering the tax changes that we took to the last election. And primarily those 2 income tax cuts next year and the year after which our opponents opposed and said that they would unwind. So the Prime Minister and I have made the same point about tax, we’ve got a tax agenda to cut income taxes for 14 million Australians, not once but twice. And that is our focus. No doubt people will bring to the roundtable a whole range of ideas on tax. We’ve tried not to artificially narrow or restrict the ideas that people put forward.
On regulation, I think that there is a big opportunity when it comes to better regulation. I’ve made that clear on a number of occasions now. I have been engaged in a really intensive period of consultation in the lead‑up to the roundtable. There are areas which will always be contentious. Already in this press conference, a couple of those have been mentioned, industrial relations, tax, I think tech as well, will always be contentious. But there are also areas where there is, I think an emerging view, a sense of some common ground. And they are around making sure that our regulation is fit for purpose. Making sure that our approvals are faster, making sure as is the case with RG97, that our regulation is serving its intended purpose and not getting in the way of some of the things we want to see in our economy like building more homes. And so I’m optimistic that we can make some progress on regulation and on approvals. A whole bunch of our colleagues are doing a heap of work on that, and I think it will be one of the big themes that’s raised next door next week.
Journalist:
You won’t narrow or restrict talk on tax. What about this idea of taxing the family home? There’s a new report out today, economists are saying owner‑occupied housing is fuelling income inequality. Is it a conversation that should be had?
Chalmers:
Look, this is one of the examples I gave, I think, on the very first day when I was at the National Press Club. There are obviously areas that no sensible government would go near, and that’s one of them. We don’t pretend, we don’t propose to change the tax arrangements on the family home. We’ve used that as an example of something that I don’t think any Australian Government will do. So we’ve made that really clear. Obviously, we’re aware of the inputs. More broadly, I just think it’s respectful to people, we’ve asked them to make 3 days available to the nation to grapple with some of the big trade‑offs and opportunities in our national economy and confront these big challenges together. I think it’s respectful to say to people, bring your ideas, you know what our government’s position is, you know what our trajectory is, and our values are. And any further steps that we pick up and run with after the roundtable need to be consistent with that. But the rules that we’ve put on people’s contribution that they’re realistic, that they’re affordable, that they try and build consensus around something that’s in the national interest, not just sectional interests, those are really the only guidelines that we have provided people who are attending next week. I think a whole range of issues will be raised, and that’s fine by me.
Did I do everyone over here? I didn’t. I think I said Jack, and then we’ll go over here, and then we’ll come over to you.
Journalist:
Minister Rishworth, just on Phil’s question again, why is it fair that the union movement can bring ideas about industrial relations to the productivity roundtable, but bosses can’t?
Rishworth:
I have had in my discussions with both employer groups and unions since I’ve been in this portfolio many different ideas, many different ideas, many viewpoints already. So I must say, when it comes to industrial relations, I will be pretty clear, no one is shy about coming forward with their ideas. We’ve got a very clear perspective and a clear mandate to make sure we do get wages moving again. That’s what this data that we’re talking about here today demonstrates. We are starting to see progress on that. We’ve also been very clear about what our election commitments and how we’re delivering on those election commitments, including protecting penalty rates in the awards system. So, we’ve been clear about our agenda, but I have to be very clear that both employer groups and employee unions and the like have not been shy about putting their views forward.
Journalist:
So, you’re happy though then if bosses bring IR ideas?
Rishworth:
Look, as I said, since I have been Minister, there’s been a lot of ideas put in front of me, and I have to say they haven’t always been ideas that have been opposed to one another. I’ve had a number of constructive ideas brought forward by both employers and employees, where there is common ground and there are constructive ideas put forward. So, I have to say that there are a lot of proposals that have already been put towards me as Minister, and I’m sure that will continue.
Chalmers:
We’re going to go Karen, then Anna, then Clare, then Ron, then behind you, then we’re done.
Journalist:
Treasurer, you’ve spoken a few times about AI and navigating a middle ground. Look, in regards to big tech, they haven’t been really keen on regulation, especially if they’re housed elsewhere. Is the Albanese government able to stare down big tech when it comes to AI?
Chalmers:
The responsibility that we embrace as a government is to chart a responsible middle path between those who say that we should just let AI rip and those who pretend, naively, that we can just turn back the clock on AI. Artificial intelligence has the potential to be a game‑changer in our economy and in our society. And the challenge for us, the responsibility for us that we embrace is to try and capture as much of the economic upside as we can while we manage the risks and downsides. And so that’s the responsible middle path that we intend to chart to regulate as much as we need to, to protect people in a responsible way and as little as we can to encourage innovation and productivity and the contribution to the economy.
Now there’s a lot of complexity in that. It’s no easy task. No country around the world confronting this identical challenge will find it easy. But that’s the approach that we intend to take. This can be a force for good in our economy so long as we don’t lightly dismiss the very real concerns that people have. Whether it’s creatives, whether it’s workers, we have a responsibility to look after people at the same time as we capture as much of the economic upside as we can.
Journalist:
Treasurer, Nine newspapers has just quoted the co‑founder of Hamas, Sheikh Hassan Yousef, saying he welcomes your government’s decision on Palestinian statehood, and it follows a fellow Hamas official saying recognition is the fruit of the October 7 massacre. The Israeli ambassador has just put up a statement questioning why your government hasn’t been more focused on the plight of the hostages. Did your government consider making recognition conditional on the release of hostages, and what do you say to the fact that Hamas is welcoming your policy?
Chalmers:
First of all, we’ve been very clear on our position on the release of the hostages. Secondly, the announcement the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister made this week is about isolating and excluding Hamas from the future leadership of Palestine, a State of Palestine. And our position has been very clear on that as well. We see recognition, making our contribution to the international progress and momentum behind this question as an important step towards a two‑state solution. And a two‑state solution is all about making sure that families in Israel and in Palestine can raise their kids in peace. And Hamas will have absolutely no role in that. We need to continue to work with the international community to keep the Palestinian Authority up to the mark on the commitments that they’ve made in that regard. Clare and then Ron.
Journalist:
Treasurer, you said just before that the government’s tax policies haven’t changed, it’s a similar kind of remark that was made last term, right up to the moment that they did change with stage 3. Can I get some clarity on your view as to whether any tax ideas that come out of the summit would be requiring a mandate at the 2028 election. And just if I can clarify, Minister Rishworth, is it your view that the current arrangements allowing for flexible negotiations in workplaces are sufficient and that there isn’t any further need for something that would facilitate more four‑day work weeks?
Chalmers:
First of all, we haven’t seen all the ideas raised at the round table –
Journalist:
– but principally, a change in tax.
Chalmers:
Well, it’s hard to pre‑empt the suggestions that people might make. There might be sufficient appetite and sufficient common ground in areas that aren’t especially controversial to make some progress on tax reform. But I’ll give you the same answer I gave a moment ago. The government’s priorities on tax are cutting income taxes for 14 million Australians, not once, not twice, but 3 times by the time we’re finished. That’s our priority.
We’ve got legislation in the parliament around tax. We’ve said, I think, for a couple of years now certain for at least a year, that we are working with the states and territories on EVs. We’ve got a multi‑national tax agenda. We’ve got legislation around capital gains for foreigners. And so we’ve had a tax reform agenda, and our focus is on rolling that out. People will bring all kinds of ideas next week. And we have said – we haven’t changed our position on the tax policies that we have, we’ve got an agenda that we’re rolling out, and we’ll listen to what people say next week to see if there’s any common ground.
Rishworth:
So, in answer to your question, Clare. Firstly, I would say that we made significant changes to the law that are now delivering dividends, and we see that in the real wages data today. Equally, in those changes, we included the right to request flexible work, and of course, we are currently doing reviews, there’s already one review underway, there will be other reviews about whether our laws are delivering what was intended, and we intend to look carefully at those reviews.
The final point I would make is enterprise bargaining is a great opportunity for workplaces where workers and their unions can sit down with employers and look at how at a workplace level they can achieve productivity gains. And we have seen in enterprise bargaining the opportunity to introduce as just one of those productivity measures, four‑day working weeks because it works for that enterprise. So, enterprise bargaining and reinvigorating enterprise bargaining has been key objective where many of these issues around flexibility can be worked out at an enterprise bargaining level, and I would encourage organisations to look at how they can engage in enterprise bargaining.
Chalmers:
Ron.
Journalist:
Treasurer, last week, the PM said, the only tax policy that we’re implementing is the one that we took to the election. You seem to have left the door a little bit further open than that, or is he just talking about that in time moment? Can you just explain the differences perhaps, the interpretations people might take from your 2 statements. And then is an EV tax the kind of policy that for example you didn’t necessarily take to the election but if you can get some kind of agreement and if I can, third one, what’s your response to the four‑day work week?
Chalmers:
On EVs, we made it clear before the election publicly that we were working with the states and territories on a regime. That work was made necessary in part by the High Court decision out of the Victorian challenge. And the states and territories were working on their own regimes, and because of the High Court outcome, it became necessary that the Commonwealth do that work with them rather than states going it alone. So we said that before the last election. We’ll take the time to get that right. We haven’t settled on a model or on timing when it comes to that change, but clearly a government of either political persuasion will need to make changes there because the excise take on petrol will come down as petrol vehicles exit the fleet and as EVs take up a bigger and bigger proportion in the decades ahead. And so, obviously, everybody understands the long‑term challenge in the budget. We’ve said we’re working with the states and territories on that. We’ll do that in a considered way, and we’ll take the time to get it right.
On tax reform more broadly, the PM and I have said the same thing. Our focus in tax is rolling out 2 more rounds of income tax cuts for 14 million Australians. We took that to the last election. The reason that is especially relevant is because our political opponents said that they would repeal those tax cuts. One of the reasons that we are in government again for the second term is because we are cutting taxes for workers, and they wanted to jack up taxes for workers. And so, the Prime Minister and I have both said that that’s our priority.
On the four‑day work week, I’ve had a bit to say about this through the course of today, but happy to repeat my position. Which is, obviously, first of all, the points that Amanda has made about employers and employees working together to strike the best arrangements that mean the great employers keep their best workers. Our interest here is in making sure that people can balance their work and family responsibilities. That’s what motivates our position on work from home and in some of these other contentious areas in recent times. We haven’t been working up a policy for a four‑day week. That hasn’t been our focus. Our focus in industrial relations has been abolishing non‑compete clauses, protecting penalty rates, extending paid parental leave, for which I tip my lid to Amanda Rishworth, for the work she’s done in 2 portfolios now to make that a reality for Australian parents. That’s our industrial relations agenda. And what motivates our agenda and what motivates the ACTU position is really making sure that workers in this country can balance their work and family responsibilities.
Behind you.
Journalist:
So, some people, when it comes to the wage growth, they might be concerned that it fell from 0.9 per cent last quarter to 0.8 per cent this quarter, particularly that that fall was entirely in the private sector. Is that something you’re going to be looking into moving forward?
Chalmers:
First of all, thank you for a question about the wages data. I think we’ve got a tendency to skip over the very good news this week. Yesterday, the third interest rate cut in 6 months and today, very, very welcome wages data. When you consider the absolute mess we inherited in real wages falling for 5 consecutive quarters and falling sharply when we came to office, we’ve got 7 consecutive quarters of real wages growth. The strongest real wages growth in 5 years. Now there is, I think a misperception – I saw it reported, to be fair to you, somebody else reported this too – it’s actually the case that the biggest contribution to real wages growth, to wages growth in this quarter was from the private sector.
And that’s because I think something like three-quarters of the wages data is private sector. So there’s a headline I saw that said it was driven by the public sector, and the private sector was going backwards. The biggest contribution here has been made by the private sector. And that’s a very welcome thing and we also saw that in the National Accounts, the private sector taking over from public demand. That’s the kind of shift that we want to see in our economy.
And so across the board – and I’ll invite Amanda to say one more thing about this before we knock off – across the board we’re seeing real wages growth. One of the most encouraging elements of this is that the private sector is making a big contribution. We’re seeing real wages growth really across the board, and as Amanda pointed out a moment ago that is deliberate. That is a deliberate design feature of our economic plan. And that’s why we’re so pleased and heartened to see the progress on wages today, the progress on interest rates yesterday, the progress on inflation that we’ve made together. We’ll get another unemployment number tomorrow, but unemployment has been extremely low, historically low under the life of our government. All of those things are good things. We don’t dismiss the challenges in our economy but we have a better foundation than most countries do. And I’ll just ask Amanda to bring it home and then we’re done.
Rishworth:
Thanks, Treasurer. I would point out that we are seeing real wages growth both in the private and public sector. As I said, in every single state and territory and of course across industries. This wages growth that we’re seeing, and the real wages growth we’re seeing is right across the economy and that is an encouraging sign and demonstrates that our commitment to get wages moving is starting to show dividends.