JIM CHALMERS:
Angus Taylor has been rolled again – this time on the Reserve Bank reforms. When the review came out this is what Angus Taylor said: ‘The recommendations of the review will clarify the Reserve Bank’s monetary policy role, strengthen its governance arrangements, improve the transparency of its decision‑making and deepen its economic expertise. It is essential the implementation of the review be as bipartisan as possible.’
He has been rolled once again. This is becoming a very regular occurrence. The position that has been reported from the Coalition is irresponsible, it’s disappointing, but it’s not especially surprising given Peter Dutton’s pathological negativity and Angus Taylor’s weakness.
The Reserve Bank’s reforms are all about making the RBA more independent, not less independent. The position that the Coalition has taken shows that it has absolutely no idea and absolutely no economic credibility. I tried to take the Shadow Treasurer seriously, even though nobody else appears to. We have always been hostage to the Shadow Treasurer’s ability to carry an argument internally.
I wanted to run you through all of the consultation that has happened over the course of at least a year and a half. I have met 3 times with the Shadow Treasurer since April of 2023. I’ve also arranged in‑person briefings with the Treasury and with the Reserve Bank Review panel, again since April 2023 – one briefing with the RBA review panel, briefings with the Treasurer and 3 meetings with myself as well as the exchanges of all of the letters that you’ve seen reported on.
He raised in that consultation, the Shadow Treasurer raised 6 issues, and I have accommodated his view on every single one of those 6 issues that he has raised. Let me run you through them.
He wanted the chair of the governance board to be the Governor, and I facilitated that.
He wanted flexibility in term limits, and I’ve facilitated that as well.
He wanted senior RBA executives to have oversight of the operation. I made sure that the Deputy Governor was a member of the governance board.
He wanted to ensure that the dual mandate should exclude references to equal weight, and so I made sure that the legislation and the Statement on Conduct don’t mention equal weight for the dual mandate.
He asked that Section 11 be retained. I’m proposing that we retain Section 11 and focus it more appropriately.
He asked that all current members of the RBA board should move to the monetary policy board, and I proposed an amendment so that all current board members move to the monetary policy board unless they don’t want to.
I have accommodated the Shadow Treasurer on all 6 of the issues that he raised in the consultation on this really important legislation. I dealt with him in good faith for the best part of a couple of years. I did genuinely put a premium on bipartisanship, but there’s only so much that you can do. I’d even started to consult him on possible appointments to the boards, so he knows that I have absolutely no intention of making political appointments to these boards.
It’s also worth remembering that the Reserve Bank Governor supports the reforms and has called on them to be legislated. In the speech in November Governor Bullock said, ‘I want to begin by making it clear that I am 100 per cent behind the changes.’ On the 16th of August this year – less than a month ago – Governor Bullock said, ‘I would like it to pass.’ Governor Bullock has made it very clear that she would like to see the legislation pass, and obviously the Coalition has not taken her view on board.
This shows the Coalition were never serious on Reserve Bank reform. It shows that they can’t be taken seriously on the economy as a consequence. They are in the third year of a three‑year term, and all we’ve seen is destructive and irresponsible negativity but no credible or costed alternative economic policy.
The view that they’ve expressed today is irresponsible, it’s disappointing, but it’s not surprising because they always put politics before economics. They are always looking for unnecessary conflict despite our best efforts to land a bipartisan outcome. Obviously we’ll now consider the next steps and we’ll make those next steps clear in time.
Over to you.
JOURNALIST:
Treasurer, it seems like you have 3 options: you can accept Angus Taylor’s demands; you can decide to negotiate with the Greens instead; or you can just shelve the legislation. What direction are you taking?
CHALMERS:
My preference is for one of the first 2, but all of those options are on the table.
JOURNALIST:
Just to follow that, Treasurer, you said in the past that I think you wanted something that was bipartisan. Is it that – so basically dead in a ditch as an idea – that pursuing an agreement with the Greens and getting it through the Senate over the objections of the Coalition is still worth pursuing?
CHALMERS:
My preference has always been and continues to be a bipartisan outcome between the 2 major governing parties in the Senate. All of you know publicly and privately I’ve expressed that view for some years now. That’s because I think that these changes, which are all about enhancing not diminishing the independence of the Reserve Bank, should endure beyond changes of government. Ideally the major parties would both be signed up to them.
I’ve been doing my best to ensure a bipartisan outcome. That’s still my preference. And that’s related to the answer I gave to Michael’s question. We’ll consider the next steps – all options are on the table, but my preference hasn’t changed. I’d prefer a bipartisan outcome in the Senate. I think I’ve shown a willingness, I’ve demonstrated a willingness, to accommodate every single issue that the Coalition has raised. I think that demonstrates my efforts here at bipartisanship.
The Shadow Treasurer made it very clear that he was very supportive of the Reserve Bank reforms. I read out that quote a moment ago. Unfortunately, we have been hostage to his ability to convince his leader and his colleagues. He’s been unable to do that and has been rolled once again. That is irresponsible. It’s disappointing. It’s not especially surprising when you consider the destructive negativity which is the Opposition leader’s calling card.
JOURNALIST:
What do you say to Mr Taylor’s criticisms that it was your commentary about the Reserve Bank board leading to their position?
CHALMERS:
That’s just his latest excuse for being rolled. I’ve been making a similar point for some months. I made a similar point as far back as June. I’ve been saying the same thing for some months, and the comments that I made 2 Sundays ago were so uncontroversial and so familiar to many of you that some outlets, including yours, didn’t even report them. That’s because what I said 2 Sundays ago was consistent with the views that I’ve expressed for some time.
I was making a factual point which no serious economist would contest, which is that higher interest rates slow the economy. I think that’s self‑evident. I don’t think that’s especially controversial. I feel like some of you must agree with that because you didn’t report it when I said it.
It’s his latest excuse for being rolled. I’ve been making that point for some months, and I don’t believe it’s genuinely the reason why he has had to turn 180 degrees on his support for the review.
JOURNALIST:
Treasurer, have you met with the Greens at all about an alternative pathway for this legislation through the Senate? And just on a separate issue, some of the commentary from the Minerals Council last night was fairly heated. Are you up for a brawl with the mining industry at the next election?
CHALMERS:
The Greens have raised it in the context of other discussions that we’ve had over time. But we’ve not been seriously negotiating with the Greens on it, and that’s because I’ve expressed a view and a preference that this be a bipartisan outcome with the major governing parties. I think that’s in the country’s interests. I think it’s in the national economic interest that there be bipartisanship between the major parties. Unfortunately, the position that the Coalition has taken deals the minor parties into the conversation more than they should be in my view. And that’s an unfortunate development.
When it comes to the Minerals Council dinner last night, and the speeches there, I was there. I appreciate the opportunity to engage, as I frequently do, with leaders in the mining industry, the resources sector. The resources sector is such an enormous contributor to our economy. It’s an important employer. It’s a generator of wealth and prosperity, and it will be an indispensable part in the future economy that we’re trying to build together.
It’s not unreasonable for leaders of any industry to raise issues that they have. We listen to the issues that are raised with us, and our intention and our record is to work closely with that industry in the service of our national economic objectives.
JOURNALIST:
Just on the social media age verification, the Coalition has been calling for trials and limits for months. They’ve decided on a minimum age. You’re only this week starting to trial any technology at all. Have you been behind on this?
CHALMERS:
No, of course not. We’ve said that the age assurance trial is the important part of testing the implementation approaches and informing the way that we design this policy. The third phase of that trial kicks off this week. And so we are working through these issues in a methodical way. We’ll continue to work with National Cabinet and draw on the work of former Chief Justice Robert French to make sure that we get this right.
We understand the genuine and legitimate concerns that Australians have and particularly parents have about kids on social media. And we know that early access to social media can be harmful, and we put a premium on the mental and physical health of young Australians. That’s our focus here. We’re working through the issues in a methodical way in advance of legislating these changes, and that’s an appropriate way to go about it.
JOURNALIST:
Just on the negotiations, is there any scope for you to talk with Peter Dutton directly, to go over Angus Taylor’s head, if you think that that’s where the blockage is? And separately, some economists have raised with me that this kind of effective limbo that the board is in given they don’t know their future could be compromising their independence because they’re worried about, will they keep holding the position. What do you say to that?
CHALMERS:
First of all, all the options are on the table when it comes to future discussions. I’m not anticipating a conversation with Peter Dutton. It’s usually appropriate that we deal with our direct counterparts. For me, for better or worse, that means dealing with Angus Taylor.
When it comes to uncertainty created by the Coalition’s position, the Governor herself has made it really clear that she wants to see this legislation passed so that we can bed it down. The reason we missed the first deadline is because the Coalition voted with the Greens in the Senate to send it off to an unnecessary parliamentary committee. That’s why we missed the midyear deadline, and that is creating uncertainty when it comes to bedding down these important changes.
I pay tribute to Governor Bullock for the efforts that she has put in to implementing the changes that she is solely responsible for, in the same way that her and I work closely together to implement the changes that may require legislation. The legislative piece is really important, and the longer the Coalition plays politics on it, the more uncertainty that creates. That’s one of the reasons why the position that’s reported this morning is so irresponsible.
JOURNALIST:
If it is option 3, as Michael pointed out, and nothing happens, how concerned should households be about the conduct of monetary policy and the governance of this board? You’ve made it a big thing for reform of the RBA.
CHALMERS:
We’re trying to make the Reserve Bank more independent, not less independent. That’s one of the reasons why these Reserve Bank reforms are so important. That’s why we’ve worked through the issues in such a methodical bipartisan way. It’s because these are really important changes. They’re about strengthening the Reserve Bank for the future. They’re about learning the lessons of the past. They’re about adopting international best practice. But overall it’s about strengthening the Reserve Bank and making it more independent, not less independent. By attempting to knock off these changes and by rolling the Shadow Treasurer, the Coalition has introduced an element of unnecessary uncertainty. That does make their position especially irresponsible.
JOURNALIST:
Treasurer, Angus Taylor in the article quoted today says his point of difference now is the single contention that you’ve said that the board, if they choose to switch over, can switch over. He doesn’t want that. So would you be prepared to – in a final compromise – to say that the board has to switch over completely wholesale, no choice in the matter, as a way to seal these reforms?
CHALMERS:
We haven’t taken a decision on that. I think I said in relation to all of the related questions today that we’ll consider the next steps. We’ll work through all the options. Those options are genuinely on the table. But when Angus Taylor raised this with me before, I proposed an amendment to give effect to his view, to accommodate his view that all current board members move to the monetary policy board unless they don’t want to. That seems to me to be a pretty substantial accommodation of his views, and he’s taken a different view. I think that’s because he’s been rolled. We know what he thinks about the Review. He said so publicly. He says the recommendations are good. He says he wants bipartisanship. We don’t have bipartisanship as a consequence of the decision that he and his colleagues have taken overnight. That’s unfortunate. It’s disappointing, but it’s not especially surprising. Peter Dutton looks for unnecessary conflict wherever he can find it. Unfortunately these important reforms to enhance the independence of the Reserve Bank are hostage to Peter Dutton’s negativity.
JOURNALIST:
Last week, Treasurer, we saw a report quoting a senior Labor figure apparently who described the RBA as barbarians and weirdos and full of bizarre groupthinkers. He described Michele Bullock as a nutter. Do you know who that senior Labor figure is, and what do you think of that commentary?
CHALMERS:
No, I don’t. I don’t know who that was, and I don’t agree with it at all.
JOURNALIST:
Treasurer, Tom Ravlic from The Mandarin, International Tax Review and Professional Planner.
CHALMERS:
Hi Tom.
JOURNALIST:
Your colleague Stephen Jones has been working with the various professional bodies on the tax agent determination. That determination related to the set of 8 new [inaudible] obligations for tax agents. It’s coming up for a disallowance motion I think today. What are your views on the fact that the Coalition is putting up the disallowance motion?
CHALMERS:
Obviously Stephen Jones has been working through those issues for some time, and I’ll leave you in his capable hands to respond.
JOURNALIST:
Just on the subject of airlines, what role do you think divestiture powers could play in boosting competition in the aviation sector, and will you consider it as part of your competition review?
CHALMERS:
We’ve done our own work when it comes to boosting competition in the aviation sector. And I shout out Catherine King, who has done a wonderful job with work on the White Paper and in other ways to ensure that the aviation sector can be as competitive as it can be.
Our political opponents are hopelessly split when it comes to competition in aviation. Bridget McKenzie made some comments yesterday that her leader, David Littleproud, said there was absolutely no evidence for. They need to sort themselves out. They are all over the shop when it comes to competition in the aviation sector.
We are introducing a bunch of competition measures in aviation. We’re doing slot reform when the Coalition didn’t. We’re increasing transparency when the Coalition didn’t. And we’re looking after consumers where the Coalition didn’t. And these are all really important parts of our agenda. The Coalition, and particularly the National Party, doesn’t even have a coherent view on some of these issues, but we do.
JOURNALIST:
Thanks for another question. Just following up on –
CHALMERS:
You’re welcome, Jacob.
JOURNALIST:
Always appreciated this early in the morning. The question of people moving or staying on the current board?
CHALMERS:
Yes.
JOURNALIST:
Has anyone said to you how many, if that is the case, that they would prefer to go to the governance board and leave the monetary board?
CHALMERS:
As part of the review process I was obligated to write to the members of the current board to see what their preference was. I invited them to have a discussion with Governor Bullock about their preferences and their plans. I don’t really want to publicise the private conversations between the Governor and her board members. I think that they are appropriately private.
The Governor herself has said publicly that she would like to see continuity on both boards, not just on one board. But because of the strong view expressed by the Shadow Treasurer we came to a view which accommodated his public and private commentary that he would like to see everyone move over. I thought a really effective way to accommodate that, to respect his view and to accommodate that view, is to say that everyone goes to the monetary policy board unless they don’t want to.
Those conversations between the Governor and her board will obviously continue in a world where we bed down a way that those boards are constituted and chosen. Beyond that I don’t really want to get into private conversations.
JOURNALIST:
Just to follow up on that, Treasurer, could a board member on the monetary policy board, if they’re appointed, resign in favour of going to the governance board to get around this?
CHALMERS:
That option is always available to people on any of these boards. We think the best way to do it is to say everybody goes on the monetary policy board unless they don’t want to, unless they express a preference to be on the other board, the governance board.
I want to say again, in case people missed it at the start, we hear all this excuse‑making about composition of the board and the sorts of people that we might appoint to them. Because I’ve taken the Shadow Treasurer more seriously than his colleagues do, I’ve even engaged him in a conversation, a genuine conversation, about the sorts of appointments that we might consider making to the governance board and the monetary policy board if the monetary policy board appointments are necessary. We’ve done that in good faith. Obviously I don’t want to get into the detail of that, but the idea that he is genuinely worried about the appointments that we make is not consistent with the way that we have genuinely consulted on those potential appointments.
Thanks very much, everyone, for coming. Appreciate it.