Jim Chalmers:
This is going to be a really important week for our economy. The Economic Reform Roundtable is all about 3 days to help inform the next 3 budgets.
We’ve made a lot of progress together in our economy. We’ve got a lot more work to do. And this roundtable is all about building consensus and building momentum around the next steps that we need to take.
We’ve got a lot to be proud of in Australia when it comes to the progress Australians have made. Getting inflation down, keeping unemployment low, getting real wages growing, getting the debt down, seeing interest rates fall already 3 times this year. And we know that the best way to work out the next steps to build on our agenda and to build on our progress is to do that together.
The timing of this roundtable couldn’t be better and the responsibility couldn’t be bigger. Our economy is finally balanced. Between the progress we’ve made on inflation and jobs and real wages and the productivity that we will need to sustain that progress into the future as well.
We’ve got a lot going for us, we’ve got a lot coming at us, and we’ve got a lot of work to do. And that’s what the Economic Reform Roundtable is all about.
Now we are focused on delivering the very substantial agenda that we have announced when it comes to economic reform. This is about the next steps. It’s about building consensus. It’s about building momentum. And it recognises that the best ways to consider and grapple with the big challenges and opportunities in our economy is to do that together.
Critics of the Economic Reform Roundtable are really arguing for us to involve people less, which is not how this government rolls. From the Prime Minister down, this government is about working through issues in a considered and a consultative way, a methodical way, and that’s what the Economic Reform Roundtable is all about.
Now I’m confident that we can make progress together. I’m confident that the effort put into this Economic Reform Roundtable is already worth it. We’ve focused the country on the productivity challenge. We’ve gotten people accustomed to dealing with the economic and fiscal trade‑offs that governments deal with every day. We’ve made progress with the regulators already, hundreds of ideas from the regulators when it comes to better regulation, cutting red tape, getting our economy moving more efficiently and effectively, cutting approval times. And these will be key considerations in the coming week as well.
Productivity is the main game here and we’ve got our eyes on the prize. We know that to build productivity in our economy over time will require sustained effort. It’s not about making people work longer and harder for less, which is the Liberal Party’s position. It’s all about ensuring that people can earn more and keep more of what they earn, we make our economy more dynamic, more competitive, we teach and train people to adapt and adopt technology, we get the energy transformation right. These are the government’s priorities.
Now I see in the media today that the Liberal and National Parties say that this should all be about industrial relations. No matter what the question is in the economy, the Liberals and Nationals think the answer is lower wages and harsher conditions and scorched earth industrial relations. They’ve made that really clear. They’ve gone to an election with a policy for higher taxes, lower wages, bigger deficits and more debt. That’s the Liberal and National Parties’ position that they took to the election. They don’t come to these questions with much credibility at all.
If the Liberals and Nationals had answers on productivity they wouldn’t have presided over the weakest decade for productivity growth in the last 60 years. No matter what the question is, these characters always think the answer is less pay, worse conditions and harsher industrial relations.
We will get the productivity growth we need in our economy by making the Federation work better, making our economy more competitive and more dynamic, getting the energy transformation right, teaching and training people to use AI and other technology. These are the ways that we’ll build productivity. Not by taking the low road, which is the Liberal and National road to lower wages, harsher conditions and scorched earth industrial relations.
Now Ted O’Brien’s not out today, as far as I can tell. They’ve sent Tim Wilson out. And that’s because no matter what the question is, they think the answer is less pay, and that’s why the industrial relations spokesman is out today and not the Shadow Treasurer.
Happy to take a couple of questions.
Journalist:
In terms of the roundtable, are the outcomes already determined, or are you open to new ideas?
Chalmers:
We’re not pre‑empting or predetermining the outcomes of the discussions that we’re having in the coming week, but we are preparing for them. Obviously, we’ve done a lot of consultation already, a very intensive period of consultation. The boardroom blitz, discussions with unions and others, economists and experts. I’ve now spoken to most of the participants in the Economic Reform Roundtable itself, the core participants, and there are a lot of ideas already out there.
Now we’re not pre‑empting or predetermining the outcomes of the discussions. We are preparing for them, and Treasury is providing briefing for us as you would expect. We are confident that we can build some consensus and build some momentum around some of these reform directions.
The work doesn’t finish on the Thursday night of the Economic Reform Roundtable. Nobody’s pretending we’ll have every challenge in our economy fixed by Thursday night. But it will help us work out next steps. It will ideally set some reform directions and try and build some consensus and momentum around them.
Journalist:
And what’s the scope of the tax changes that you’re opening to as well?
Chalmers:
We’ve made it clear that our highest priority in tax is rolling out the income tax cuts that we took to the election. We’ve also been working closely with states and territories in areas like EVs and road user charging, not in a rush, but we’ll take the time to get those sorts of considerations right. And so people know our tax agenda is focused on those income tax cuts that our political opponents opposed and said that they would repeal. That is overwhelmingly our focus, but there are some other issues that we have flagged that we are working on as well.
Now, we don’t want to constrain the ideas that people put to us at the Economic Reform Roundtable. But we’ve made the direction of travel pretty clear on tax. The direction of travel for this government when it comes to income tax is we cut income taxes last year, we’re cutting them next year and the year after. That’s about encouraging workforce participation, rewarding hard work and providing enduring cost‑of‑living relief.
Journalist:
Why has there been mixed messaging between you and the PM on what to expect when it comes to this reform?
Chalmers:
I don’t think that there has been. Both the Prime Minister and I have been really clear that this reform roundtable is not to replace the decisions taken by ministers, it’s to inform them.
This is all about 3 days to help inform the next 3 budgets. The Prime Minister and I have made it really clear. We’ve made a lot of progress together. We’re focused on delivering and rolling out the economic plan that is working, and the best way to work out the next steps beyond that is to do that together.
Now people who want to criticise this effort are really arguing for us to involve people less in the big economic challenges of our time. We’ve made a lot of progress, we’ve got a lot going for us, we’ve got a lot coming at us, we’ve got more work to do, and the best way to do that work is to do it together.
Journalist:
Just on a Queensland issue as well, the Premier, David Crisafulli, has stated that he feels that Queensland’s being hard done by in the GST carve up. Is that something that you’re in discussions with him on?
Chalmers:
First of all, I don’t agree with his assessment. These decisions about the GST distribution are taken independently at arm’s length by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. And it’s not unusual for states from time to time, from year to year, to want more money from the Commonwealth or to want more money from that independent process.
That story is as old as Federation. That premiers and treasurers at a state and territory level would like more of the GST in the last 25 years or so, and they would like more Commonwealth funding in the last 125 years or so. That’s a very old and familiar story.
Now this government is investing very substantially in Queensland. Whether it’s the huge Bruce Highway commitment that we made, whether it’s the schools deal that we signed with Premier Crisafulli, this government has been providing billions of extra dollars for Queensland and we’d love to see that recognised when people make the usual calls about hoping for a bigger part of the GST distribution, but that’s determined by the Commonwealth Grants Commission.
Journalist:
At the end of the day though Queensland is contributing a lot in terms of resources and also economic input into the Australian economy. Should Queensland be charged this much GST for that?
Chalmers:
It’s not about how much Queensland is charged. The GST is applied equally around the country and the Commonwealth Grants Commission determines the carve up. Queensland has historically done very well out of it. From year to year different states indicate a preference to receive more of it. That’s not especially surprising.
Now we recognise and we acknowledge, we celebrate the massive contribution that Queensland makes to the national economy. That’s why we’re investing billions of dollars more in the Bruce Highway, it’s why we’re investing billions more in Queensland schools, really right across the board. Extra funding from this Albanese government to Queensland which recognises the very important role that Queenslanders play in the nation and that Queensland plays in the national economy.
Journalist:
What is your response to reports today that accuse Labor of hoarding medical research funds?
Chalmers:
I don’t agree with them obviously. That was actually a story that was in the papers yesterday. And I don’t think any objective observer of the way that this government is funding health would say that people are going backwards when it comes to health funding. We’re providing billions of dollars right across the health system, we’ve got the Medical Research Fund, and so I would contest some of the points that were made in that story yesterday.
Journalist:
You’re the man who sees the books. What’s the problem with the reporting that’s been put out there?
Chalmers:
I’m not going to go through sentence by sentence a story that I don’t agree with. The point that I’m making is this government is investing much more money in health. Much more money, billions and billions of extra dollars in health right across the board, research plays an important role in that, and the Medical Research Fund plays a role in that as well.
Thanks very much.