Jim Chalmers:
The purpose of economic reform is to boost incomes and lift living standards over time. When we came to office, living standards were in free fall, inflation was much higher and galloping, real wages were falling, interest rates had already started to come up – and we’ve been turning things around. We’ve got inflation much lower, sustainably within the Reserve Bank’s target band, real wages are growing again, interest rates have started to come down, unemployment is low, we’ve delivered a couple of surpluses and we’ve got the Liberal debt down as well.
We’ve made a lot of progress together in our economy, but we know that there’s more work to do. We’ve got a big agenda that we are delivering, that we are rolling out. But we know that at a time when people are still under pressure, the global economic environment is uncertain and when we’ve got these persistent structural issues in our economy as well, we’ve got more work to do and that’s what our efforts on economic reform are all about.
Our Economic Reform Roundtable is all about making our economy more productive and more resilient and our budget more sustainable at the same time. Now, these are long‑standing issues in our economy and there’s no quick fix. We have an agenda that we’re rolling out, and we are looking to build consensus about next steps when it comes to our economy.
Now, when it comes to the range of views which have been provided, especially in the last couple of days, whether it be from the union movement, the business community, the Productivity Commission, there have been a range of proposals put to us. I know that the Member for Wentworth and the federal parliament is hosting a tax reform discussion today as well.
I want to make it really clear – we welcome ideas on the future of our economy from every corner of our economy and every part of our communities. This is a good thing to see the kind of engagement and interest that we’ve seen in the government’s Economic Reform Roundtable and all of the processes which surround it. We don’t expect there to be a unanimous view, but we are seeking common ground. We do welcome ideas from all parts of our country and we’re very encouraged by the level of interest and engagement that we are seeing.
When it comes to the Productivity Commission report released overnight, I wanted to make a couple of points specifically about that. The Productivity Commission makes it really clear that this challenge in our economy has not been just a feature of our economy the last couple of years, but for the last couple of decades. Our productivity challenge is a long‑standing challenge. The weakest decade for productivity growth in the last 60 years was the decade that our political opponents presided over. So, this challenge has been in our economy for some time.
There are no quick fixes and we want to work with business and unions and the community more broadly to turn that around over time. Making our economy more productive is one of the most important ways that we can boost incomes and lift living standards over time, and that’s why it’s such a priority for us. Our priorities are to make our economy more productive, to make our economy more resilient in the face of all this global uncertainty, and also to make our budget more sustainable. At the same time, the Productivity Commission has provided some thinking to help us work through these issues. We also welcome the input from unions and businesses and others. I suspect that there will be more of this between now and the Roundtable next month, and that’s a very good thing. Happy to take a couple of questions.
Journalist:
Minister, I’ve just got a few questions from our journos in Canberra. On productivity, business and unions are already taking shots at each other in the media over the Productivity Roundtable. Are you worried that the process is becoming unconstructive already?
Chalmers:
Not at all. There’ll be a range of views about our productivity challenge and that’s a good thing. We welcome engagement and interest and ideas from unions, from business, from the Productivity Commission, from the community sector and from others. It’s a good thing in a country like ours that we can tease out our differences and seek common ground and that’s what we’re seeing right now. This is precisely why we’re seeking to bring people together. Not because we expect everyone to have a unanimous view. But because everyone’s got an interest in strengthening our economy and strengthening our budget, making our economy more productive and more resilient, lifting living standards and boosting incomes.
Every Australian has an interest in that. Not every Australian will have a unanimous view, but this is our best effort to seek common ground around these big, persistent structural challenges in our economy. We think it’s a good thing that that conversation that people are engaged in is robust. We think it’s a good thing that people are being blunt and upfront about their views. I think that gives us the best possible chance of working out if there’s common ground and where that common ground might exist.
Journalist:
How does Queensland benefit from the opening of [INAUDIBLE] beef imports from the US?
Chalmers:
Well, this has been a long standing process that has been underway. It’s a scientific process that involves experts and scientists and it makes sure that our arrangements are up to scratch. I see that there’s a lot of commentary around this in the last day or 2. I know that our political opponents want to play their usual low‑rent politics over it but this is a long‑standing scientific process. It’s coming to a conclusion and it’s all about making sure that we have the best arrangements based on the best scientific advice.
Journalist:
The ACTU says that workplace managers are dragging down the nation’s productivity. Is that a view you share?
Chalmers:
I think it’s obvious that when it comes to decisions taken by managers and by boards and by others, obviously, that has implications for productivity. I think it would be unusual in the extreme if the ACTU representing Australian workers weren’t able to make that view public. And as I said before, and in answer to your colleague’s question here, I think it’s a good thing.
Whether it’s the unions, the business community, the PC or others, people should be free to express their views about the best way forward when it comes to making our economy more productive. Obviously, decisions taken by managers and by boards and by others are relevant here to the productivity challenge and I think the ACTU should be able to make their views public.
Journalist:
Hoping to ask you a question about the ABC’s Four Corners story about the ATO and Paul Keating’s company. Are you confident that ordinary taxpayers would have the same level of access and the opportunity to get a similar outcome on a tax write‑off as the former Prime Minister Paul Keating?
Chalmers:
Well, first of all, I want to make it clear that the first I knew about that decision was when I read it on the ABC website. It’s not something that I was involved in or aware of. In fact, the decision, as I understand it, was made about a decade ago in 2015. That’s 3 treasurers ago, 4 if you include Scott Morrison’s sneaky second stint as Treasurer. So, a long time ago under a government of a different persuasion and a few treasurers ago.
The ATO takes these decisions independently, that’s how the system works, and treasurers of both political persuasions don’t make commentary on the tax affairs of individuals or individual companies. These decisions are rightly taken independently by the ATO. They have their own processes when it comes to reviewing and considering appeals and feedback that they get from different taxpayers. And that is appropriately a matter for them.
Journalist:
Will you be contacting them though, and asking them for a full explanation?
Chalmers:
Look, I speak regularly with the Commissioner of Tax Rob Heferen. I appointed him not that long ago. We met not that long ago, we catch up relatively frequently, but it’s not for me to second‑guess decisions taken 10 years ago under other treasurers and other tax commissioners. There are good reasons why the ATO takes those sorts of decisions independently, free of political involvement or interference.
Journalist:
Do you think that Glencore is bluffing when it says it’s going to close its copper smelter? And if it isn’t bluffing, what is the federal government doing to protect 17,000 indirect jobs through the chain of supply in North Queensland?
Chalmers:
This is a very anxious time for the workers of North Queensland and North West Queensland as well. Very anxious time. The Industry Minister, Tim Ayres, gave an update to the Senate yesterday – as I understand it – on these matters. Our priority is to try and find a way through. Minister Ayres, I think, is convening the major players involved here in the next few weeks to try and find a way through.
I’m not interested in second guessing the explanations that the company might be providing. I’m interested in trying to find a way through, so I work with Tim Ayres. He’s been very focused on this. We’re obviously very aware of it. It’s obviously an anxious time for all of the workers and communities involved and so if we can find a way through, we will. Tim Ayres is bringing people together to try and see what the next steps could be.
Journalist:
Minister, France has announced it will recognise Palestine at the UN General Assembly in September, would that influence Australia’s position?
Chalmers:
That’s a matter for the French government. Our Australian position is very clear. We’ve called for an immediate end of the war in Gaza and we support an enduring 2 state solution as the best pathway out of this endless cycle of violence. So the Australian position is clear. I know that Penny Wong will be speaking later on today in the context of the AUKMIN ministers meeting in Sydney, so she might have more to add about that then.
Journalist:
Ms Spender is hosting her own tax roundtable today where halting the $3 million super tax will be discussed. Would you be open to hearing those similar sorts of views from that roundtable in your own discussions and roundtable?
Chalmers:
I’ve been consulting on that issue for 2 and a half years now. We announced that decision, that policy, 2 and a half years ago. We’ve done 3 rounds of formal consultation, there’s been Treasury‑led technical roundtables, stakeholder roundtables, bilateral engagement, so we’ve been engaging and consulting on that for years now. I know that Allegra has a view about it and she has a right to express that view, as do people participating at the roundtable. I want to say this more broadly, I think it’s absolutely terrific that Allegra Spender is bringing people together as part of the tax component of this Economic Reform Roundtable.
The Economic Reform Roundtable, as I said, is about productivity, resilience and budget sustainability and obviously, tax has a role to play in all 3 of those things so I think it’s a really good thing that Allegra is bringing those experts together in Canberra today. As I understand it, I will obviously listen to and respect the views put forward around that table today in Canberra. My position on making these generous tax concessions – still generous, still concessional – but fairer and more sustainable is well known, well established.
Thanks very much.
Journalist:
Thank you very much, Treasurer.