RAF EPSTEIN:
Michael Sukkar joins us now. He is of course, the Liberal MP for the seat of Deakin here in Melbourne. He’s also the Assistant Treasurer, part of the Prime Minister’s team. Thanks for joining us.
MINISTER SUKKAR:
Good to be with you, Raf.
RAF EPSTEIN:
If it was okay for so many weeks to spend $130 billion, if that was prudent and sensible, why is it now a bad idea to spend something north of $70 billion?
MINISTER SUKKAR:
Well, Raf, I think you’re looking at it from the exact wrong perspective. What we do is we put in places policies and programs like this that have criteria as to who qualifies and who doesn’t, and you attach a cost to it. These are always the best estimates of Treasury that the Government accepts. Now in this case – and amongst your editorial I think that you made a very important point – the health outcomes that we’ve now had some twelve weeks after the pandemic started, means that we’ve got much lower community-wide infection than perhaps even some of our best estimates of that time. We’ve got a much lower peak of coronavirus case load than even our best estimates at the time, the risk of our ICU being exceeded that was a real risk then, certainly hasn’t been reached and there was a significant risk of much deeper and longer restrictions which were going to have a big impact on the economy. So, at that time in estimating what the JobKeeper program would have to do and the size and the scale, I think that it’s fair to say that – understandably – a pessimistic view was taken as to where the health outcomes would go. Now, as the health outcomes have been so much better, Raf, clearly there’s an economic dividend and a budget dividend but the JobKeeper program, as any program – same as the JobSeeker program, there’s over 1.6 million Australians on JobSeeker – the criteria that is put in place mean that if businesses were doing worse, there would be more employees qualifying. I think that absolutely answers the question because the scheme itself, the price tag of $130 billion, as you know, Raf, was based on the best estimate at an extraordinarily difficult time.
RAF EPSTEIN:
I’m not questioning the estimate or why the number was come up with. If I can ask the question again, lets see if I can get a bit more of an answer maybe. You spent weeks defending the idea that $130 billion was prudent, was possible, was sensible. How do you maintain that argument while denying a lot of help to a lot of people when the cost is now only $70 billion if almost double that was okay?
MINISTER SUKKAR:
Because I reject the assertion in your editorial, Raf. Australians are receiving a suite of…interrupted.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Which bit do you reject?
MINISTER SUKKAR:
I reject that people aren’t being supported, Raf. Just because someone doesn’t qualify for JobKeeper, for example because their business has not suffered to the extent required – as you know, a 50 per cent reduction in turnover for large businesses or a 30 per cent reduction for small and medium businesses – but they still lose their job, those people are supported by JobSeeker, $1,100 a fortnight with a $550 Coronavirus Supplement. So, to accuse the Government of not supporting those people, I think is grossly inaccurate, Raf.
RAF EPSTEIN:
The clear design of…interrupted.
MINISTER SUKKAR:
They are your words, Raf, that they are not being supported. That is grossly inaccurate.
RAF EPSTEIN:
The clear design of the JobKeeper program is to keep people connected to their employer but, have I got that wrong? You did think…maybe I need to break the question apart. You did maintain that $130 billion was prudent and possible, didn’t you?
MINISTER SUKKAR:
Of course, Raf but I think that we get back to the point that the Government shouldn’t borrow anymore than it has to.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Sure.
MINISTER SUKKAR:
Because in the end, it’s not my money, Raf, it is future taxpayer’s money, this is borrowed money so this is a call on future taxpayers who will have to repay it. Now we shouldn’t borrow a dollar more than we have to, than what is necessary to support families, to support individuals and to support businesses at this difficult time.
RAF EPSTEIN:
When you talk about being able to support people, you did canvass with me – this has been played to you a few times, I think, but if I can just play it. You did canvass with me the possibility that if there were less than six million people on JobKeeper, the Government might be open to extending the scheme. We had a chat on 14th May. This is part of what you said:
MINISTER SUKKAR (REPLAY):
I’m confident that the JobKeeper scheme – as it’s broadly put together – is doing the job. As I said, we’ve hit the milestones that we thought that we would in terms of six million employees covered. Now, you and I would perhaps be having a different conversation if today you said to me, ‘Michael, there’s only three million employees who are covered, it’s half what we expected’. In that case, I’d be saying to you, ‘yeah, look there’s more of a likelihood of wholesale changes’. But given where it’s tracked, I think that it’s largely tracking in a successful way.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Michael Sukkar, is that still the position, or not?
MINISTER SUKKAR:
I was making a very self-evident point, Raf, that we will be reviewing the scheme, as you know, in June. That is happening and the number of employees and indeed the number of businesses enrolled, of course is going to be a relevant factor in that administration and in that review. But in the end, the broad parameters of the scheme, in our view, are smaller than what was otherwise expected because of the improved health outcomes which has led to an improved economy. So, I think that really deals with the question as to why a disparity in that number is more explicable but, in the end, the review should occur, Raf, and no doubt…interrupted.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Would you be spending anymore than $70 billion, do you think?
MINISTER SUKKAR:
Again, Raf, I think it will really depend on where things go over the next few months.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Can I ask you then to direct this answer at the range of people who have not qualified for JobKeeper? If it was okay to spend $130 billion, what do you say to the person who’s missed out, about why it is not possible to spend a cent above $70 billion to save that person’s job?
MINISTER SUKKAR:
Well because, Raf, a number of policy decisions were taken. So, for example, your assertion that those in the arts and entertainment sector have been excluded, is wrong. Yes, there are people in the arts and entertainment sector – quite frankly as in every sector – who will miss out for one factor or another, but the reality is that if you’re a…interrupted.
RAF EPSTEIN:
They’re more than likely than most other people, to be a less-than-twelve-month-casual – they go gig-to-gig.
MINISTER SUKKAR:
Well if you’re a sole trader in that instance, as many are, they qualify for JobKeeper so again that’s just an incorrect assertion. Raf, the parameters are set so there are, sadly, going to be some people who miss out, who are effected by COVID-19 who, for example, because the business they work in hasn’t seen a significant enough reduction in their turnover – there might be enough of a reduction that it’s impacted their hours or even their job but not significant enough for them to access this support – in which case, we have the JobSeeker payment as support…interrupted.
RAF EPSTEIN:
I don’t think you’ve answered that question.
MINISTER SUKKAR:
I think I’ve absolutely answered it because…interrupted.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Why don’t you borrow a bit of extra money, up to where you said you were going to spend, to save my job?
MINISTER SUKKAR:
Because, Raf, in the end, we’re borrowing what we need to borrow to fund the programs we’ve with the parameters as they’ve been set. Now, those people who, for whatever reason, the business they work for doesn’t qualify, they are receiving other forms of support that again, require a call on the budget, require a call on the Government’s finances. These things are not cost-free. People are receiving that support; they’re receiving stimulus payments to households – over five million households have received those – we’ve got cash flow boost going to businesses - $100,000 to small and medium enterprises – I mean…interrupted.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Do you think the people who are missing out expect too much?
MINISTER SUKKAR:
Well that’s a very loaded question, Raf and I think a very unfair question. I think you are not focussing on the suite of support that is being provided…interrupted.
RAF EPSTEIN:
To be fair, Michael Sukkar, I’ve spoken for weeks and weeks and months about all the things provided to support people.
MINISTER SUKKAR:
I can understand that JobKeeper – being the single largest piece of support that’s been providing through the package – is something that we talk a lot about. But again, if somebody, through no fault of their own – whether they’re a short-term casual, whether the business they work for doesn’t qualify because it hasn’t had a significant enough reduction in turnover – those people are entitled to other forms of really significant support and I think even you would concede, JobSeeker is a serious additional support that the Government put in place as far as the coronavirus. So, everybody has been accounted for. To the best of our ability, we’ve tried to ensure that all of those people that you’ve spoken about are accommodated. There’s been a lengthy process where we’ve consulted with businesses and individuals. Now, in the end, of course if there was an inexhaustible amount of money that we could spend, an inexhaustible amount that we could borrow, then we would do it, but I don’t think that anyone suggests that that’s prudent. Because a program that was assuming a really devastating set of health outcomes, reduces in size because those health outcomes – through some very, very good work from all levels of government – means that there is an economic and a budget benefit, I am very surprised that you can’t see the connection between those two. Better health outcomes have led to better economic outcomes, less restrictions, the economy will open-up much sooner than we were expecting, the call on our health services are much lower. Therefore, the size of the JobKeeper program is commensurately smaller. I think that’s all a fairly logical sequence of events.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Well I’m glad I’ve at least surprised you. Thanks for your time, thanks for your answers.
MINISTER SUKKAR:
Thanks so much, Raf.