Sharri Markson:
Joining us now is Michael Sukkar from Canberra. Michael, you’re actually in quarantine yourself with your family. You’ve been stuck there for eleven days now already so I hope that you’re surviving. Starting with the Victorian hotel quarantine inquiry, we heard Daniel Andrews’s testimony on Friday, it has outraged so many people, particularly in Victoria. He ultimately said that he didn’t know whose decision it was to use the private security contractors. Do you think that he is shirking his responsibility here, do you believe that it is possible that a Premier didn’t know – doesn’t know – who made this decision?
Minister Sukkar:
Well, Sharri, great to be with you. Look, I think that the point that you make in your question is very good and that is ‘do we have more answers now, at the end of all of the evidence to this inquiry than we had at the beginning?’ And I think that the answer is that, no, we don’t have answers to really the fundamental questions that this inquiry – certainly in the beginning – has sought to answer. Now, we’ll wait for the final report where we hope that the veracity of the evidence is tested and conclusions are made. But I think that, as a Victorian who has seen the economic devastation, the lives that have been lost, the families that have been traumatised and devastated, the businesses and livelihoods that have been lost, having seen all of that, the inquiry was important because hotel quarantine and the catastrophe associated with it, has led to this second wave and quite rightly, we need answers. I think now what is more concerning it seems to Victorians that I speak to is, sure, there was a disaster in hotel quarantine which has led to this second wave but now, at the end of all the evidence, after a litany of Ministers and senior bureaucrats have been interviewed, we have a situation where a decision as critical as that, is a decision that nobody, seemingly, in the government or the bureaucracy or other agencies, knew who was responsible. I think that is even a more worrying thing because what other significant and critical decisions are being made as we speak, to deal with the pandemic, where lines of responsibility are unclear and the ultimate decision makers are unknown? I think that is almost a worse outcome. That you could have a situation where the decision as to, and the arrangements around hotel quarantining, are decisions that no one can pinpoint either individual or collective responsibility. I think that is the bigger worry for Victorians now…interrupted.
Sharri Markson:
Look, this is a really, really serious leadership issue, Michael Sukkar. Should the Premier resign over this?
Minister Sukkar:
Well, Sharri, in the end, that is a question for the Premier to reflect upon and for commentators such as yourself. As a Federal Government Minister, what we are trying to do is support Victoria and to lend a hand, and particularly where there are inadequacies, to lend an even greater hand to try and help them because in the end, our job is to try and help Victorians. But as I said, I think that the bigger worry here is that at the end of all of the evidence, with the Premier, senior ministers being interviewed, senior bureaucrats, nobody was able to outline who was ultimately responsible for what is probably the most catastrophic decision in Victorian public-policy history and it will certainly have the most catastrophic consequences. So I think that’s even, and I don’t want to harp on it, I think it’s even more concerning than the initial question as to who made this fateful decision.
Sharri Markson:
Yes. Now, I want to move onto the budget, it’s on October 6. You’ve obviously been working on the budget document with the Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg. This was meant to be a document where we were going to be back in surplus. Instead, the Government has said that it’s prioritising jobs growth over budget repair and has delayed any sort of move to work towards getting back into the black until unemployment is down to 6 per cent. Have you got any modelling about when you expect that this will occur?
Minister Sukkar:
Well, Sharri, as the Treasurer outlined in a speech this week, we are now looking at a two-step strategy. One is obviously recovery, focusing on recovery which, as you rightly say, uses as a really important benchmark, the level of employment in the economy, in this case unemployment being at or below 6 per cent. And then of course, once those benchmarks are achieved and taking into account the full suite of circumstances in the economy at that time, looking at the recovery phase and to ensure that as a country – and in a similar vein to the Howard Government and in a similar vein to the work we did over seven years of budget repair – building up our buffers again for any future economic shocks. All of those questions around when we’re likely to hit those benchmarks, will be outlined in the budget papers. In the end, what the objective of this budget is, is to create economic growth, create jobs, and as the PM said yesterday, to increase aggregate demand in the economy. If we do that, what we have seen throughout Australia’s history is that that obviously has long-term fiscal benefits for the budget. So you can’t do one without the other. The recovery phase is where we are now, and then Australians can trust that as a Coalition Government, and having done the hard work over seven years to get the budget back to broad balance last year, that we will in a position to go to that next phase of building up the buffers.
Sharri Markson:
We almost have to go to a break but I just want to get to one more question. You’ve also announced that you’re winding-back responsible lending laws that were introduced in the wake of the banking royal commission which will allow people to borrow money to buy or invest in property more easily. It had become almost impossible for people to get a loan under the responsible lending laws but are you now worried that this might swing into the other extreme where some elements of the financial sector might aggressively try to sell debt to people who just can’t afford it? It’s something that Jim Chalmers has warned about, that people might fall into a debt trap?
Minister Sukkar:
Well, no, we’re not concerned about that because there are very strict rules in place imposed by APRA and that is the unfortunate reality of the responsible lending laws. They are an additional layer that are on top of a framework that is already there. Again, Sharri, it is not in the interests of any bank to lend money to someone that can’t repay it. The motivation for us in changing these responsible lending laws, as you say, is to make it faster and less burdensome for people to get the credit that they need either to buy a home or to buy a car or, indeed, to support their small business. So, these laws don’t hurt banks. These laws, the responsible lending laws that we’re getting rid of, they hurt everyday Australians and that’s why we’re doing it, that’s what motivates us. In the end, the framework imposed by APRA, is already very strict, Sharri, that I don’t have a concern. What I am pleased about, and we will be seeking support from the Parliament on this, is that these changes will be an adrenaline shot in the arm of the economy just at the time when we need credit to be flowing.
Sharri Markson:
Okay, Michael Sukkar, thank you very much for joining me and good luck for your final few days in hotel quarantine.
Minister Sukkar:
Great to see you. Thanks, Sharri.