Journalist:
Is this latest announcement just another thought bubble from Donald Trump?
Jim Chalmers:
Well, we’ll take the time to work through the implications for our exporters of the developments in Washington DC overnight. We’ll take the time to work through the costs and consequences of what’s being proposed here.
There are 2 major developments from President Trump overnight. The first relating to copper, the second relating to pharmaceuticals. Only a very small amount of Australian copper is exported to the US, there’s a bigger market for our pharmaceuticals. We’ll continue to engage with our counterparts in the US on these issues. We’ll continue to engage with our own exporters and industries to work through the potential costs and consequences of what’s being proposed overnight.
Journalist:
This morning you said it was very concerning, deeply concerning, something like that. You’re sounding more measured now that you’ve had time to kind of, I guess, actually speak with American counterparts. Are you, is the government not concerned about these potential tariffs now?
Chalmers:
We think that these tariffs inject an unnecessary element of uncertainty, unpredictability and volatility in the global economy, whether it’s the developments on copper and pharmaceuticals, or the tariffs more broadly. We’ve made it clear, we see them as bad for the American economy, the Australian economy and the global economy and this extra element of unpredictability comes at a very unwelcome time. There’s already a lot of uncertainty in the global economy. We are better placed and better prepared to deal with that uncertainty, but we’re not immune from it. And so it’s concerning from that perspective to see these announcements made overnight.
We have spent some time working our way through these developments through the course of today, we have engaged with our exporters and with our industries. We are still seeking more information about the application of these proposed tariffs. When it comes to pharmaceuticals, the President said that there’s a period of time that he would be considering this potential step. And so that gives us the opportunity to properly understand what it means for our workers, our businesses, our exporters and our investors.
Journalist:
Analysts are warning that a US tariff on copper could lead to higher copper prices globally in the short term. Are you concerned that that will have implications and perhaps delays for the renewables rollout? And secondly, you just said that people shouldn’t assume Paul Keating’s view on the unrealised capital gains tax. Are you suggesting he is not opposed to it as has been widely reported?
Chalmers:
I’m not suggesting that. I was asked a very specific question about some comments that Paul made last week and I’m happy to repeat again, as I said a few minutes ago, that I have a good relationship with Paul Keating. It’s a respectful relationship, and that’s why I don’t go into our private conversations. I think Paul Keating’s views on this particular issue are relatively well known, and I’m not disputing the characterisation of those views. But when it comes to the statements he made last week about who would be affected by this modest change that we are proposing, I think we should be careful about people’s assumptions.
Again, I don’t want to verbal him, I don’t want to go into private conversations. I don’t think it would surprise any of you or anyone listening to learn that I speak with Paul Keating relatively regularly. Not just about this issue, but about a whole range of issues in our economy, in our country, in the world. He has views about a whole range of policy issues. And if anyone has earned the right to express those views, Paul has. And that’s the approach that I take to those kinds of conversations.
Now, when it comes to copper, first point I’d make about copper is that our exports to the US are a tiny sliver of our overall copper exports. We’ve got a wonderful copper industry and terrific businesses involved in exporting copper, but it’s it’s less than one per cent of our copper goes to the US. That’s not nothing, but it’s not a big chunk of our copper exports.
We will work through all of the potential costs and consequences, including the one that you asked me about when it comes to the important role that copper will play in the global net‑zero transformation. We’ll do that in the usual, considered and methodical way. Sorry, Lucy, Lucy’s got to file, I should have gone to Lucy first, sorry Lucy. First at 5.
Journalist:
Can you again rule out whether the PBS would be used in any tariff negotiations?
Chalmers:
Absolutely, the PBS is not on the table in any negotiation. This Albanese Labor government is about strengthening the PBS in the interests of our people. Not weakening it in the interests of American multinationals, we’ve made that clear on a number of occasions. If you look at our record when it comes to the PBS, we see it as an absolutely crucial part of our health policy architecture. We’ve spent a great deal of our time in office and substantial public funds to strengthen the PBS, not weaken it. It is not on the table in any negotiation, we’ve made that clear at every opportunity.
Journalist:
On the PBS there Treasurer, what’s your assessment on the potential impact on prices from any tariffs. Is it your view that the PBS would largely shield consumers from having to pay more for their medicines here, or is there any chance that prices could rise?
Chalmers:
Well, first of all, again, I’d say that we’re not prepared to negotiate any element of the PBS in the engagement we have with the US. Secondly, we’re working our way through the potential consequences. And if you look at the statement that President Trump made about pharmaceuticals, he indicated there was a long lead time, a long period where he’d be considering this possible step. That gives us the opportunity to properly understand what it means for Australians and what it means for Australian pharmaceutical companies.
Journalist:
Has the government been able to have communications with American officials since that proclamation early this morning in terms of exactly what Donald Trump’s thinking is?
Chalmers:
I think everyone would understand that we’re engaging with the Americans on a more or less continuous basis about these issues. I haven’t had the opportunity to speak with my direct counterpart about that, I spoke with him the week before last about a whole range of other issues, but that engagement we have with the Americans is ongoing.
Journalist:
Treasurer the PM said in recent days that there will be a response from the government on the antisemitism issue in coming days. Do you know what that might look like? What will that include?
Chalmers:
I’m not prepared to pre‑empt that. The Prime Minister’s made a number of statements about that. Obviously, we are incredibly concerned about antisemitism in our society, and some of these recent attacks are disgusting. They’re disgraceful, and we’ve taken a number of steps to crack down on antisemitism. We’ve got an important piece of work coming, but I don’t want to pre‑empt that.
Journalist:
Treasurer, you said you haven’t spoken to your counterpart on –
Chalmers:
Today.
Journalist:
Today sorry. What level were the discussions that have been had since Donald Trump’s proclamation this morning?
Chalmers:
Well, that’s primarily a matter for the trade portfolio and the foreign affairs portfolio, you’d have to check with them on the specifics of our engagement. But I think in response to the question before I made it clear that we engage at almost every level more or less continuously on some of these issues. We know they’re very important to our exporters. Obviously, from day to day, there are new developments. We know that Ambassador Rudd and others work very hard to engage with the Americans at that end as well and people should expect that to continue.
Journalist:
Shouldn’t the Prime Minister get on the phone with Donald Trump?
Chalmers:
Well, the Prime Minister has had a number of conversations with President Trump already about some of these issues. These developments are only overnight our time, and so we will work through the potential costs and consequences for us, we’ll engage in the usual way, no doubt at some point that conversation will happen. So patient Charles. Has anyone seen Charles this patient before?
Journalist:
On the monthly CPI indicator following Bullock’s comments yesterday, it seems that she’s raising questions about the quality of that and Shane asked about this yesterday too but why is it taking so long for that quarterly, effectively, to make the quarterly CPI –
Chalmers:
What do you mean taking so long?
Journalist:
Well, I mean, it’s nearly been 2 years since the initial work that you started to progress that. What, what, why is I guess, the delay. Why is it taking nearly 2 years for that to be rolled out as a monthly measure?
Chalmers:
First of all, thanks for acknowledging that we are changing it, because it costs money and it takes time to change that measure. And again, as I did yesterday, I shout out Andrew Leigh and David Gruen. We work very closely with them to improve our data so that whether it’s the Reserve Bank or the government, we can make better decisions with more frequent updates.
And so the ABS is working its way through a number of issues. As always, when we’re introducing a new type of data, there’s a sense of that testing that has to be done, there’s a whole bunch of work that needs to be done. And it costs money as well so we’ve provided that money, provided the resources, provided a lot of encouragement, because we think it’s a really good development to get a monthly data set on the CPI.
The monthly CPI that we have right now is really useful, but it’s not useful enough because it doesn’t compare the same things as the Governor said and I said yesterday as well. So by the end of the year, we’ll have a monthly CPI which is more robust and more reliable than the current monthly CPI and that will be a really good development. You can have a glass‑half‑empty view about that which is why is it taking so long? Or you can have a glass‑half‑full approach to that which is to say isn’t it a good thing that we’re changing?
Journalist:
Why wasn’t it set up with the same basket in the first place?
Chalmers:
Well, first of all, remember that not that long ago, there was only the quarterly series. There wasn’t a monthly series at all and in the interests of better informing decisions. I think it must have been in and around COVID time, an amount of resources was provided to do a monthly indication, not a full CPI, but a monthly indication. That was a good development at the time. We all welcomed it, but we can do better, and we are going to do better and so it’s iterative. And by the end of the year, we’ll have a monthly CPI. It’s a really good thing.
Obviously, we always want these changes to happen immediately. Sometimes they take time, they take resources, they take commitment and enthusiasm of the type provided by Professors Gruen and Leigh and so we’re on it and before long, we’ll have that better data set that the Governor would like, that the government would like too.
Journalist:
The Governor mentioned productivity yesterday, you’ve mentioned it a number of times. How much is Australia’s success in the next financial year going to be determined on if we can get productivity up?
Chalmers:
In the next financial year?
Journalist:
Yep.
Chalmers:
We have to be careful to assume that there’s some kind of switch that we can flick to substantially change productivity around immediately. There’s not instant policy gratification when it comes to productivity. It’s different. It has taken decades to build as a problem in our economy. And it will take time to turn around as well and we’ve tried to make that clear and be upfront with people. We’ve got a big productivity agenda already around skills and education, competition policy, the energy transformation – but we need to do more and again, we’ve been upfront about that as well.
Our economy is not productive enough to deliver the higher living standards that we want for our people. So the agenda that we’re rolling out now will pay off, the agenda that we hope to develop with good people from around the country around the economic reform roundtable will help as well. But we need to be careful assuming that we can make an instant, very substantial impact. If there was a switch that we could flick to turn productivity around overnight, somebody would have flicked it already. But we are working very hard to turn it around.
It’s not a problem that’s emerged just in the last couple of years, it’s a problem that’s emerged in the last couple of decades. It requires dedicated effort across the board, a point that the PC chair Danielle Wood was making yesterday as well, that you need to operate on a number of fronts, and that’s what we’re doing.
Journalist:
I was going to ask at the end the score for the Origin tonight.
Chalmers:
Can I say about another Cameron? I want to shout out Cameron Munster who lost his dad and he’s still going to play tonight. I think that’s absolutely extraordinary. So I’m tipping Cameron Munster to be the best player on the field tonight. He has an enormous heart, and I can’t even imagine what it’s like for him to run out. Every Queenslander is around Cameron Munster, the captain and the whole team, and Billy as well. I think we’re going to win tonight, and I think we’re going to win tonight because they’ll get around Cam, and it just feels like one of those contests which is going to be special, like when Alfie came back from London. It feels like one of those contests.
Journalist:
What about when Joey came back?
Chalmers:
It’s not ringing a bell. Alfie was 50 when he came back, he hadn’t played for a decade and he still ran rings around you, Greg. I really seriously shout out Cameron Munster and his family, his loved ones, and I think the boys will get around him, and I think we’ll win overwhelmingly for that reason.
Journalist:
One final one on the PBS. People will hear Donald Trump looking at medicines, and they might be concerned they’ll have to pay more as a result. Is there anything you can say to reassure Australians who might worry that this can see their prices rise?
Chalmers:
Great question, Cam, and a good one to finish on.
Our assurance to the Australian people is the PBS is not for negotiation, it’s not for sale. This Albanese Labor government is about strengthening the PBS because the Australian people need us to. Not weakening the PBS because some American multinationals want us to – we couldn’t be clearer about that.
Thanks very much, everyone.