Michael Rowland:
We’re joined now by the Assistant Treasurer, Michael Sukkar from Melbourne. Good morning to you.
Minister Sukkar:
Good morning, Michael. Good to be with you.
Michael Rowland:
Thanks for coming on board. Now I think that most people agree that JobKeeper did save so many jobs, it did save so many businesses. The question always comes back to why weren’t clawback provisions written into the legislation so we would not be having this argument, this discussion right now?
Minister Sukkar:
Well it was very clear, Michael that the suggestions and the consideration at the time that clawback provisions would’ve meant the program would’ve been less successful. We all remember staring down the economic abyss 18 months ago when Covid-19 hit. In the end, JobKeeper wouldn’t have been as successful, it wouldn’t have supported 3.8 million Australians, more than 1 million Australian businesses, 98 per cent of which are small to medium size Australian businesses, had we done so. So it’s very clear. The RBA has said that JobKeeper saved 700,000 jobs, Treasury said at the time that unemployment would reach 15 per cent. Now clearly because of the success of JobKeeper and the other measures put in place by the Government in response to the pandemic, things fortunately have worked out a lot better for the Australian economy and Australian businesses. But in the end, Michael, those 3.8 million Australians whose jobs were supported by the JobKeeper package were far too important and I think that very clearly the JobKeeper program has been one of the most successful in Australia’s history. For that reason the parameters of the program were very deliberately chosen.
Michael Rowland:
Why would inserting clawback provisions have made the scheme less successful? We’re talking about a couple of lines in legislation and I think that most companies would’ve happily agreed to those conditions?
Minister Sukkar:
Well no because at the time, Michael, the test was based on anticipated turnover reduction, quite rightly. We needed to get the money out the door quickly, we needed to support jobs straight away…interrupted.
Michael Rowland:
But that’s fine, that was understood but why not just say ‘and if your revenue doesn’t fall by this anticipated amount, you give the taxpayer money back to the Government?’
Minister Sukkar:
Because that would’ve risked Australian jobs, Michael…interrupted.
Michael Rowland:
How would it have risked jobs?
Minister Sukkar:
At that time, Australian companies were making decisions about headcount based on anticipated turnover. That’s very clear. It was very clear that businesses were looking at what they were anticipating in their businesses. That was informing their decisions on whether to stand Australian workers down or to sack people and this is a program that was here to support the 3.8 million Australians who received JobKeeper. That is who it was designed to support. It was extraordinarily successful in doing so. The Treasury review found that there was an average reduction in turnover of 37 per cent for those businesses who accessed JobKeeper. As I’ve said, the RBA has found that it saved 700,000 jobs so even looking back now and looking at the parameters of the program, I think it’s very clear that if you change those parameters, the success of the program, I think, would have changed drastically. For those 3.8 million Australians who are now been told by the Labor Party that their jobs shouldn’t have been supported, I think is quite outrageous.
Michael Rowland:
Rex Patrick, one of the crossbench Senators, is so angry about what you’re not doing in terms of getting that JobKeeper money back that he’s stopped negotiating on a key environmental approvals bit of legislation. He’s described the Prime Minister as the most shameless and unethical Prime Minister ever based on his oversight of what he says is a rorted scheme. What do you say to Rex Patrick?
Minister Sukkar:
Well I think it’s quite extraordinary, Michael, that the Labor Party seem to have latched onto the crossbench Senators’ wagon here. This program supported 3.8 million Australians. Let’s remember JobKeeper was a program to support Australians jobs, to keep them in a job, to give them that lifeline when many of them – due to the lockdown – were told you literally cannot go to work. That’s what JobKeeper was there for…interrupted.
Michael Rowland:
What do you say to Rex Patrick? Let’s put the Labor Party to one side. He is a key crossbench vote you’ll need not just on this legislation but on other bits of legislation going forward. What do you say to him?
Minister Sukkar:
Well Michael I’m telling you what I’m saying. I’m saying that the JobKeeper program supported 3.8 million Australians. We are very proud of that, we don’t walk away from that, we don’t apologise for supporting those 3.8 million Australians. We know now that the economic supports that the Government put in place – most predominately JobKeeper but Homebuilder and many other programs – has led to the relative economic success that we are now enjoying. Yes, with lockdowns there are a lot of businesses suffering. What Labor is now saying in response to Rex Patrick is, potentially, that they want to retrospectively claw back that money. I think that for the 98 per cent of businesses that were small to medium Australian sized businesses, that is a very frightful claim from the Labor Party…interrupted.
Michael Rowland:
And we’ll take that up with the Labor Party when we get them on next.
We’re out of time but we’ve just got one more question to ask you. You’re a very senior member of the Victorian Liberal Party. Do you have confidence in state Liberal leader Michael O’Brien?
Minister Sukkar:
Oh look, Michael, I’m not going to engage. These are all matters for the state parliamentary party.
Michael Rowland:
You must have a view? You’re very engaged in the Victorian Liberal Party. Should he have the right to contest the next election as the Liberal leader?
Minister Sukkar:
Michael, I’m not going to engage with you on this. These are all matters for the state parliamentary party.
Michael Rowland:
You don’t have a view on Michael O’Brien at all?
Minister Sukkar:
Michael, I’m not going to share any views on the state parliamentary party with you. These are matters for the state parliamentary party.
Michael Rowland:
Okay, Michael Sukkar, thanks for joining us this morning.
Michael Sukkar:
Thanks so much.