Interview with Patricia Karvelas - ABC RN Breakfast

PATRICIA KARVELAS, HOST: The National Australia Bank has pushed its prediction for the first rate cut from February out to May next year. It’s the first of the four big banks to move its projection back following news the country’s unemployment rate has remained steady.
 
Murray Watt is the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, and joins me now. Welcome to the program.
 
MURRAY WATT, MINISTER FOR EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS: Good morning, PK, good to be back with you.
 
PATRICIA KARVELAS: Before we get to jobs and wages data and that part of what is really an important story in Australia, let’s just talk about these electoral reforms that have been announced. Are you trying to just help the big major parties? Is this just about bolstering you and the Coalition?
 
MURRAY WATT: No, PK, this is about bolstering democracy in Australia. I think for many years now Australians have been concerned about the increasing amounts of money that are being spent on election campaigning, the increasing size of donations being made, whether it be by prominent rich individuals or by unions or by companies. And what we’re seeking to do is try to bring in a system that would apply to everyone equally to put some limits around the amount of money that can be donated to politics, to parties, to individuals and also some limits around the amounts that parties and individual candidates can spend in those elections.
 
You know, I think none of us want to see the arms race that has begun in Australia continue around political donations, and I certainly don’t think Australians want to see us get to the point that the US is with the vast amounts of money being spent. People should be able to win elections on the basis of their policies, their campaigning, rather than the fact that they’re prepared to spend inordinate amounts of money and take massive donations.
 
PATRICIA KARVELAS: Okay. The Independents aren’t particularly happy. Responding on X last night, for instance, Zali Steggall posted this: “During cost of living pressures the Government and the Coalition strike an in-principle deal to shut out competition and get more public dollars for big parties.” Isn’t that what ends up happening because of the way that you’ve constructed these laws?
 
MURRAY WATT: No, I don’t think so, PK. And, I mean, it’s interesting to hear independents who very commonly like to lecture the big parties about donations and who we’re taking money from. But now that we’re actually trying to do something about this, now they’re objecting to that as well. I mean, as I say, these rules would apply equally to major parties, to independents –
 
PATRICIA KARVELAS: Okay, but I have to interrupt to say you say that they apply equally, but we all know that the major parties have a leg up already, don’t you? I mean, that’s the way the system is structured. So you’re making it harder for independents to get elected into the parliament.
 
MURRAY WATT:I don’t think we are, PK. Because, I mean, the way this would work is that there would be a limit of a candidate spending $800,000 on their individual seat. That’s still a large amount of money to be spending on a campaign. And for some of the independents who are incumbent members, they already have entitlements to communicate with their electorates throughout the term, to spend money on newsletters, digital advertising, all sorts of other things as well –
 
PATRICIA KARVELAS:Yeah, but, sorry, I have to interrupt – that’s existing independents. This is about democratising the system so new people can enter. This is a major party stitch-up, isn’t it?
 
MURRAY WATT: I really don’t think it is, because, as I say, I think allowing an independent or a Labor or a Liberal or a Coalition member, or a candidate, to spend $800,000 per seat is still a large amount of money that everyone would be entitled to. But I do think it’s a problem if we get to a point where we see billionaires or extremely wealthy individuals spending hundreds of millions of dollars essentially to buy a seat. I don’t think that’s in line with Australian democracy and its traditions. That would be going down the American path, and I don’t think that would be healthy for our democracy.
 
PATRICIA KARVELAS:But why have you done a secret deal, then, with the Opposition? And the independents say they weren’t even brought in?
 
MURRAY WATT: Don Farrell, the relevant Minister, will be speaking more about this today, but my understanding is that he’s had discussions with a very wide range of people within the parliament. Obviously to be able to get anything through the parliament you need to have a majority. And I do think that it’s important when we’re talking about institutions for our political system that we do try to have as much bipartisanship between the major parties as we can. It’s one of the reasons why similarly we ended up passing the legislation that established the National Anti-Corruption Commission with the support of the Opposition, because I don’t think we want to get to a point where one of the major parties is driving a political system only to be undone by their opponents should they ever win an election. So I think it’s entirely appropriate to be having discussions with the Opposition. But I’m confident that Don has been discussing this with a wide range of people from the parliament.
 
PATRICIA KARVELAS: Okay. But given we’re hearing the independents say very loudly that they feel like this is a political stitch-up – Kate Chaney, Zali Steggall, I’m sure there’ll be more, but that’s the people I’ve seen so far – and this is clearly a grassroots movement happening in some of these electorates, will you look again at trying to address some of their concerns about the way that this bill has been constructed, or are you just going to rush it through the parliament and ignore them?
 
MURRAY WATT: I’m sure that there’ll be discussions continuing. And, of course, we’d like to get as much support for this as we possibly can. In an ideal world you’d have every member of the parliament voting for it, so those discussions will continue. But I guess it’s really up to the independents to explain to the Australian people how they can criticise the major parties for taking donations and yet not want similar rules to apply to themselves. They need to be able to explain to people why it’s appropriate for independent candidates to take donations from billionaires or extremely large entities in a way that the major parties are not willing to do. I think that would be a pretty hard argument for independents to make to the Australian public.
 
PATRICIA KARVELAS: Okay. One of the other points is that this doesn’t start until after the next federal election, and you can see why you’ve kind of made it that way – so that people can get used to it, no-one’s being ambushed, there’s enough time. I understand all of that, right? But there’s one element which is real-time donations. Why not just bring that forward and do that straight away? It is one of the most important things. It is maddening that you don’t know where money is going immediately. Just do it.
 
MURRAY WATT: Yeah, look, I agree that it’s an important thing to do, PK. And, again, it’s something that Federal Labor has tried to do for a long time, is to make the declaration of donations happen much more quickly so people know who are making those donations and who’s taking them. We also want to reduce the limit that you have to disclose. Currently it’s close to $17,000 before you have to disclose a donation that you’ve made. We want to bring that down to $1,000 so that people know the full range of donations being made.
 
But I think, equally, especially given we are getting very close to an election, I don’t think it would be a great idea for us to be seen to be fiddling with the rules around donations and electoral matters so close to an election. I think it’s important for the integrity of this system to be brought in in a way that will affect a future election rather than the one that we’re facing in a few months’ time.
 
PATRICIA KARVELAS: Are you going to allow there to be a Senate inquiry and scrutiny over this very significant change in our laws?
 
MURRAY WATT: That’s probably best for me to leave to Don to explain when he talks later today –
 
PATRICIA KARVELAS: You’re a Senator.
 
MURRAY WATT: I am. I am. 
 
PATRICIA KARVELAS: I know you know these things. Come on – Senate inquiry or not?
 
MURRAY WATT: No, look, I think – you know, as I say, we will obviously continue consulting with all parties and all individuals about this, but it’s probably best for me to leave that for Don to explain what he plans to do with his own legislation.
 
PATRICIA KARVELAS: Okay. Let’s move to some economic data. Do you agree with the NAB that we won’t see a rate cut until May next year?
 
MURRAY WATT: Well, like all of my colleagues, PK, I don’t make predictions about interest rates. But what we are certainly doing as a government is doing everything we possibly can to drive down inflation while providing important cost of living relief. Hopefully the banks will take that kind of thing into account when they make these sorts of decisions. You know, the figures that we have had come out this week are very encouraging, that we still see modest growth in our employment, on top of the one million jobs that we’ve already created since coming to office. The labour market clearly is softening as a result of some of those global pressures and also some of the weaker economic conditions that we’re seeing around the world, and that is hitting home here in Australia.
 
But the fact that we are still creating a modest increase in jobs, the wages data that came out this week was very encouraging – to hit four consecutive quarters of wages rising above inflation in Australia is just so important for Australians to be able to deal with those cost of living pressures. So we’ll do everything we possibly can in terms of our economic management to make sure that people are getting the support that they need, keep the economy ticking over rather than going backwards, but taking some pressure off that inflation rate is obviously a really important thing for us to do as well.
 
PATRICIA KARVELAS: Well let me ask this: can mortgage holders wait for a rate cut until May?
 
MURRAY WATT: Look, I think if you asked any mortgage holder they’d like to see their interest rates cut sooner rather than later.
 
PATRICIA KARVELAS: Do you think they can, though? Given, you know, that the stress on households, can they really wait till May?
 
MURRAY WATT: As I say, I think everyone would like to see their interest rates fall. I’ve got a mortgage; I’d like to see my interest rates fall. You probably do as well, PK. But they are matters that are outside the direct control of government. What’s in our control and what we’re acting on is driving down inflation – halved compared to what it was when we came to office, now back within the Reserve Bank’s target range for the first time in years. That’s a deliberate result of the policies that we’ve put in place, the surpluses that we’ve run up. But, of course, we’re providing that cost of living relief to people at the same time. And, you know, I have to say, it’s a very big contrast from what we see from Peter Dutton, who’s already made clear that if he wins the next election his solution is actually to cut spending savagely, cut so much of that cost of living relief that we’ve provided and that he always voted against, and he’s clearly got a plan to cut people’s wages and conditions from what he's already promised to do if he wins the next election.
 
PATRICIA KARVELAS:Well, he’s said there’ll be no – well, he’s close to saying there’ll be no tax cut for higher income earners. Don’t you welcome that?
 
MURRAY WATT: Well, again, I thought that was a bit of another one of those reckless sort of announcements that Peter Dutton makes, shooting from the hip –
 
PATRICIA KARVELAS: Why was it reckless?
 
MURRAY WATT:Well, as the days have gone on, he’s sort of starting to walk away from what he said. He has this habit of making these announcements without talking to his colleagues, recklessly making promises that he then has to walk back. I also heard him say on your program the other day – I was listening to his interview – and he refused to rule out making it easier for businesses to unfairly sack their workers. At a time when Australians are doing it so tough, the worst possible thing you could be talking about is cutting wages and conditions and making it easier to sack people, but that’s exactly what Peter Dutton is doing.
 
PATRICIA KARVELAS: Well, he says small businesses are under incredible pressure and hitting the wall because of your government.
 
MURRAY WATT: Well, there’s no doubt that many small businesses are under pressure, but so are the people working for them. And I think it’s the wrong solution to Australia’s current economic climate to be making it easier for businesses to unfairly sack their workers. And that’s what he’s leaving the door open to. Just as he said that if he wins the next election he will wind back casuals’ rights that we’ve provided. He will wind back the Same Job, Same Pay laws that are benefitting labour hire works. He’ll get rid of multi-employer bargaining. All of these things that we’ve put in place that are actually leading to people getting those wage increases above inflation, they’re the things that Peter Dutton wants to wind back. So, as I say, at a time when people are doing it really tough, Peter Dutton and the Coalition are saying they’re going to make things worse. And I think the Australian people will have something to say about that at the next election.
 
PATRICIA KARVELAS: Issues around things that Kevin Rudd has said in the past have come up this week, as you know. Are you – is there a threshold issue in relation to Kevin Rudd staying in the ambassador’s chair, or is this an ironclad guarantee that the Labor Party, the government, will not remove him?
 
MURRAY WATT: Well, we absolutely don’t intend to remove Kevin Rudd as our ambassador –
 
PATRICIA KARVELAS: Even if things start being problematic in terms of relationships?
 
MURRAY WATT: Well, I guess the first point –
 
PATRICIA KARVELAS: Is it just a guarantee?
 
MURRAY WATT: The first point is that Australia chooses our ambassador to other countries. Other countries don’t choose our ambassadors for us. But secondly, any objective observer can see that in his time as ambassador Kevin has done a terrific job advancing Australia’s interests, which is the role of an ambassador. He built up very strong relationships with Joe Biden’s administration, but, equally, he’s been putting in huge work over the last few months to strengthen relationships with the Republicans and some of the people who Donald Trump has appointed to very important positions. So, you know, he’s facilitated really important meetings for a number of my colleagues when they’ve been in America with people who are now part of the Trump administration or very close to it. That’s what matters rather than comments that people have made years ago. If you go looking, you can find a whole bunch of politicians who’ve said things about Donald Trump, whether it be Labor people, Liberal people, or even Donald Trump’s own Vice President JD Vance. You know, what we’re about is looking forward rather than thinking about comments made in the past, and I think Kevin has done an outstanding job as our ambassador.
 
PATRICIA KARVELAS: Murray Watt, thank you.
 
MURRAY WATT: Thanks, PK.