E&OE TRANSCRIPT
TELEVISION INTERVIEW
SKY NEWS
TUESDAY, 23 APRIL 2019
SUBJECTS: Labor’s plan to protect local workers; Labor’s plan to protect penalty rates; Morrison needs to sack climate change denying Senate candidate; Adani; Liberals’ water buyback scandal.
TOM CONNELL: Our first interview of the day, live here in the studio, Shadow Finance Minister and one of the campaign spokespeople for the Labor Party, Jim Chalmers, thank you.
JIM CHALMERS, LABOR CAMPAIGN SPOKESPERSON: Morning Tom.
CONNELL: A few issues to get through as ever with an election campaign. Let's start on the skilled migrant visa plan being outlined today by Labor. Labor's saying that they don't want this current program to be used to undercut local worker pay. Is there any evidence that's actually happening?
CHALMERS: There is if you travel up and down the Queensland coast into the Queensland regions. It's one of the issues where people can't quite understand why, where you've got people who are underemployed, people who are unemployed, people who are looking for work or more work that we still do have a big number of temporary workers. And what we're saying today is you can still, in some limited circumstances, bring in workers, but you shouldn't be able to undercut the pay of local workers. What we're saying is we're setting a new floor for what you can pay a foreign worker so that the incentives aren't there to go offshore when you don't need to.
CONNELL: So in terms of those specific examples where you can say this worker here would be getting paid more if not for a foreign worker coming in. Does that exist in the concrete?
CHALMERS: What happens right now is that there's a temporary worker threshold and what we want to do is to bring that to about $65,000 so that the incentive isn't there to pay people less than they're paying a local worker. There are a lot of great businesses obviously in regional Queensland and around the country but what happens now is, there is an incentive if you can pay someone less to do the same sort of work by bringing them in. We want to get rid of that incentive, but not just that. We want to crackdown on the exploitation of vulnerable workers, we want to get the skills assessment right, the licensing right. It's a comprehensive plan and Bill will be talking more about it later on today.
CONNELL: So if it's going to be essentially stopping people getting underpaid, so the threshold lifts from $53,900 to $65,000, presumably there's some kind of cost to the economy overall? Companies will have to pay a bit more money. Have you done any sums on what it would cost?
CHALMERS: Companies will have the opportunity to employ a local worker, which is the point.
CONNELL: But at a higher rate perhaps, or not necessarily?
CHALMERS: We shouldn't be relying on undercutting local wages to grow regional economies. And so the point that we're making is if you can find a local worker and pay them properly, that's good for the economy. That gets money flowing through regional communities. You've probably been up and down the Queensland coast as I have. You go to places like Gladstone and Rocky and Townsville and those kind of places, and you do want to see more money circulating through there. You do want to see more local people employed. And that's what we're talking about today.
CONNELL: But in terms of how this works, is there going to be some sort of cost to business, or is your thought that instead of someone coming in on this lower wage, they get a local worker instead because the threshold increases?
CHALMERS: It's pretty simple, Tom. If you can employ a local worker, you should. If we can train a local worker, that's our responsibility as a Federal Government, we will do that too. We shouldn't be using foreign workers where there are local workers available. That is good for the economy; it's good for business to use local people.
CONNELL: Ok, I want to ask you about penalty rates. The Greens and others on the crossbench are saying if they want to help you pass various bits of legislation, they're going to insist unions can't negotiate away penalty rates. Now, if you want to protect them, that's got to be a good thing, doesn't it?
CHALMERS: The negotiations that will happen around various policies if and when we were to win an election – that's a big hypothetical – that's for Senate colleagues to think about after we know what the outcome of the election is. We've made our policy really clear. We think that penalty rates that Scott Morrison cut, and that he voted eight times not to restore, we think they're an important feature of the industrial relations system. A lot of people who worked over the Easter long weekend that we've just come out of have lost their penalty rates and they've got Scott Morrison to thank for that. So we'll do whatever we can to restore those penalty rates.
CONNELL: So what about unions trading them away though. Should they be able to do that?
CHALMERS: You need to make sure that whatever unions are negotiating with workers is consistent with the law. We've said that right across the board we're going to try to level the playing field between workers and their employers. The Greens have made some commentary about this. Our first responsibility is to restore the penalty rates that Scott Morrison cut. That's what we'll do. We'll do that in the first 100 days of a government.
CONNELL: Ok I understand that but this gets to a separate issue here within this. Because when they have this deal with a union and a big employer, they often trade away their penalty rates for a higher rate of pay in other areas. But you'll have some people that are worse off as a result of that. That's what the Greens are talking about.
CHALMERS: But what you're identifying is the difference. I mean, when unions negotiate some of these deals, they're looking at getting a better deal for their worker by compensating them somewhere else. That's what's happened historically and…
CONNELL: But it doesn't happen for any worker does it?
CHALMERS: My point is that the people who lost their penalty rates because Scott Morrison wouldn't stand by them have not been compensated in any way, in any other part of the industrial relations system. All these other conversations can happen at some point with the labour movement, with the Greens and others if and when that's necessary in the Senate. Our point is, people haven't been compensated for this loss of penalty rates.
CONNELL: Yeah, but do you see what their point is on penalty rates, because you're saying we want to protect penalty rates and they're saying protect them for individual people as well. In these deals, you can see people left behind worse off as a result of the deal unions do.
CHALMERS: I understand the point that they're making and what they're getting at. My point is, our first priority is to restore the penalty rates which have been lost with no compensation whatsoever. If Scott Morrison is re-elected, the numbers we saw on the weekend that some workers would lose up to $26,000 over the next term of Government - that's our top priority to prevent that happening.
CONNELL: Ok we're just going to take our viewers briefly to Scott Morrison, he's at a fruit and vegetable facility I believe, a wholesaler in Adelaide. We'll have a quick listen in to what he's saying. Just a few comments to some locals.
[MORRISON LIVE FOOTAGE]
CONNELL: Alright, well there he is, talking to some locals. I'm sure we'll get all the colour and movement later in a news conference from Scott Morrison. I won't ask you to provide commentary on that, Jim Chalmers. Just finally on this though, so you understand the point the Greens and others are making. Is Labor open to that as a possibility?
CHALMERS: Whatever is negotiated between workers and employers needs to be consistent with the law. We've said for some time that if there are ways to improve that bargaining relationship, we'll do it. I can't stress enough for you viewers, Tom, for your legions of viewers, that our first priority is if you've lost your penalty rates because Scott Morrison wouldn't stand by you, we want to restore those. Those other issues are secondary issues as far as we're concerned.
CONNELL: Gerard Rennick seems an interesting candidate for the LNP in Queensland. He's now onto a Bureau of Meteorology conspiracy. The PM says the Liberal Party's a broad church.
CHALMERS: The Liberal Party is sort of a bonfire of crackpots, conspiracy theorists, and crooked deals. Now we've got this character saying that the Bureau of Meteorology is engaged in some sort of global plot about climate change. The problem here is we're not talking about some fringe candidate in a fringe party. We're talking about an LNP candidate in a winnable seat on the Queensland Senate ticket. Scott Morrison can't keep standing by this character, who says the BoM's engaged in a plot. He says we should take money out of kindies and preschools and give it to big business and the big banks. Scott Morrison has an opportunity today with nominations closing to sack this candidate. This candidate represents some crazy, extreme, loopy ideas, but he's in a winnable position on the Senate ticket. If Scott Morrison doesn't sack him today, then the conclusion that people will reach is that Scott Morrison agrees that the Bureau of Meteorology's engaged in a plot, or that we should take money out of kindies and preschools and give it to big business.
CONNELL: So the broad church from the Liberal Party; Labor lost a candidate already - Melissa Parke over Israel comments. She repeated this claim a Palestinian woman was forced to drink bleach. It's seemingly inaccurate, but it doesn't go against, technically, a policy from Labor. Is that kind of the zero tolerance approach to candidates?
CHALMERS: You're making my point for me, Tom. Melissa's not a candidate for the Labor Party anymore. Nor should Gerard Rennick be a candidate for the Liberal Party.
CONNELL: Was that a really tough standard for her? I mean, she didn't actually talk out against, for example, a two-state solution.
CHALMERS: I didn't see everything that Melissa said. I know that she's not a candidate anymore. I know that we've got a view on policy in the Middle East, which has been long-standing. My point is this guy, Gerard Rennick, is third on the ticket for the LNP in Queensland - a winnable spot - and Scott Morrison has said that he supports him; a guy that says a respected scientific institution like the Bureau of Meteorology is engaged in a worldwide plot by fudging climate figures. This is crazy stuff and this is what Malcolm Turnbull was on about when Malcolm Turnbull said that the extreme right-wingers have taken over the LNP.
CONNELL: Wanted to mention quickly, briefly, Adani. The line from Labor has been we will be guided by the law. But what about the approval by Melissa Price? Because at the time, many Labor people said she's being pressured. Should it be looked at?
CHALMERS: It wasn't just us saying she's been pressured. There was public commentary, there was a letter written by one of her colleagues in the party room. The first thing we need is answers. To what extent did the bullying in the Liberal Party have an impact on Melissa Price's decision? We haven't had satisfactory answers on that from her or from Scott Morrison, or from the others involved. And you're right, we have said that if there are still decisions to be taken if and when we come to office, we do that on advice. It will be based on all the principles that we laid out in the last six to 12 months.
CONNELL: I understand those, but this decision's been made, the point being that you say this decision was made under pressure, under duress. Surely you then look at the decision itself?
CHALMERS: I think that the natural conclusion of all of that chaos that surrounded the original decision by Melissa Price needs to be properly explained first by the Government, by Scott Morrison and by Melissa Price. It was some weeks ago now. Melissa Price is in witness protection. Scott Morrison dismisses these kinds of questions. I think people need to know how the decision was taken. They need to know and we can assure them if and when we are called upon to make decisions like this, we will do it properly based on scientific advice.
CONNELL: Would that include looking at this decision though as well?
CHALMERS: I'm not prepared to say that we would reopen the decision.
CONNELL: Why not if it was made under duress?
CHALMERS: Because we haven't got the answers yet. We haven't got the answers yet.
CONNELL: But if there not satisfactory, if you don't get those answers? Because you can look at the decision, have all the documents at hand.
CHALMERS: I'm just not going to engage in that hypothetical. We've made our position really clear. The project's got to stack up. It shouldn't get public money. That's been our position.
CONNELL: Right. But on reviewing it, just your position on whether you'd review it or not, you might depending on the answers from the Government? Is that what you're saying?
CHALMERS: That's not what I'm saying, Tom. I'm saying let's get the answers from the Government on this issue. Let's learn what happened around the bullying in the Liberal Party and the National Party about this outcome. It would be wrong to come to some kind of conclusion on that until we get those proper answers from Scott Morrison.
CONNELL: Open to reviewing it then?
CHALMERS: I'm not going to let you put words into my mouth.
CONNELL: OK, well I'm just asking: are you open to reviewing it?
CHALMERS: We need to get these answers first. Our position is extraordinarily clear: take any remaining decisions based on advice, it's got to stack up, no public money. That's been our position for a long time.
CONNELL: Finally on the water buyback, the Queensland Natural Resources Minister Anthony Lynham has confirmed the State Government expressed support for this purchase around the $80 million buyback in 2015. So this wasn't the Federal Government plucking this out of thin air.
CHALMERS: No, but the Federal Government's responsible for the due diligence, they're responsible for the negotiation, they're responsible for all of those aspects of it. I think it's laughable for the Government to pretend that this is somebody else's fault. This has all of the makings of a full-blown scandal: involvement of ministers like Taylor and Joyce, and Barnaby Joyce's interview which you would have heard by now last night made people more suspicious of what's gone on here rather than less. We've got substantial donations to the Liberal Party, we've got Cayman Islands tax havens, all of these sorts of things. This is the responsibility of the Federal Government. Tony Burke has rightly written to the Government to get answers on questions today, and once we get those answers then we'll consider next steps.
CONNELL: One question that Barnaby Joyce kept getting asked was whether he knew where the money ended up. The Minister has a lot of responsibilities. I would have thought first and foremost, what's going to happen to the water, and is it value for money? But he doesn't have to follow wherever this goes if it's going off to various subsidiaries, does he? Is that a minister's responsibility?
CHALMERS: It was hard to hear the questions given that kind of unhinged yelling that Barnaby was engaged in trying to get over the top of Patricia Karvelas in that interview. He has obviously got serious questions to answer here. Not just about that aspect of it, but all aspects of it.
CONNELL: But does a Minister have to know if a payment, wherever it's going, follow it from company to company, subsidiary to subsidiary? Or do they just get value for money from the taxpayer and then it's a good deal, it doesn't matter?
CHALMERS: Well first things first, Tony Burke's put a number of questions to the Government, including around these sorts of issues. We need to get the answers to that and we'll consider next steps after that.
CONNELL: Jim Chalmers, thanks for your time.
CHALMERS: Thanks Tom.
ENDS
