Today in Question Time, Abigail asked the NSW Treasurer about the Federal Treasurer’s announcement to offer States a share of $900 million if they agree to cut so-called red tape in a supposed bid to boost competition and reduce cost to businesses.
Abigail said:
My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer. Federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers has announced a plan to offer States a share of $900 million if they agree to cut so-called red tape in a supposed bid to boost competition and reduce cost to businesses. He is quoted as saying that States will be rewarded with more revenue if they deliver, in the Federal Treasurer's view, meaningful economic reforms. Is the State Treasurer insulted by the Federal Treasurer trying to tell him how to do his job? Will the State Treasurer jump through the Federal Treasurer's hoops, or chart his own course for the betterment of the people of New South Wales?
The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (Treasurer): I thank the member for her question. Firstly, anyone can insult me if they offer $900 million! Call me what you want; I have no issue with it if that is the money being offered, because I am used to Federal Treasurers insulting me and offering no money, or taking money off us. So, no, I am not insulted by the offer. Secondly, it is a good announcement by Federal Treasurer Chalmers. Indeed, I, Federal Treasurer Chalmers, Victorian Treasurer Pallas and others have been arguing, in the Council on Federal Financial Relations and in the Board of Treasurers, to say to the Federal Government that revitalising productivity funds—just like the Howard Government and the Keating Government did in 1995—is a good thing for the Federation. When it comes to productivity reform, it is also a good thing for States incurring transition costs to have access to Federal resources to help pay for them.
Let's bear in mind what that led to in 1995, with the formation of competition policy. For example, that led to the capacity to get rid of conveyance fees, to open up competition to make it much cheaper for people to transact real estate. Equally, that led to us being able to introduce pricing determinations for the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal when it comes to things like water, so people can be assured that regulated monopolies are not overcharging consumers and taking away people's real wages. That is what that framework led to. That was a good reform, which was initiated by the Keating Government, carried on by the Howard Government and then disappeared. The fact that the Federal Treasurer is putting money on the table for it is a good thing.
As for the areas that have been flagged for reform, who would object to us saying that consumers should have the right to choose where they repair their goods, rather than being forced to use suppliers? For want of a better example, rather than everyone who needs an iPhone repair being forced to use Apple's service exclusively, what is wrong with the idea that you can go to a small business and get them to fix your glass screen—particularly mine—when you bust it? When it comes to commercial and zoning reform, everybody knows—we have the evidence—that some particularly big grocery chains use planning laws to rig the situation so that no-one else can rock up and compete with them. What is wrong with us saying we should act to give consumers more choice? If that is what an insult is, keep insulting me. That is a good thing for the Federation. I look forward to working with Federal Treasurer Chalmers and any successive government to get more for New South Wales.
Ms ABIGAIL BOYD: I ask a supplementary question. I will not comment on the Treasurer's love of being insulted. I instead ask the Treasurer to elucidate his answer. Would paying the State's nurses a fair wage be considered by the Federal Treasurer, as it should be, a meaningful economic reform vital for the State's future productivity, thus making us deserving of some of that $900 million?
The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY: The member asks a really good question. The competition policy could indeed support the recognition of skills across borders between jurisdictions, particularly for nurses in aged care. That is something that we as a Parliament have already been doing when it comes to automatic mutual licensing reform, which is—
The Hon. Susan Carter (The Coalition): The mutual recognition Act had already done it decades ago.
The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY: I hear the interjections from the Hon. Susan Carter, but when Labor was in opposition, I remember getting the call from Treasurer Perrottet saying, "Thank you for supporting this through Parliament." How good is it that we had bipartisanship on such propositions, particularly when Australia needs more nurses. The idea that nurses can have the opportunity to apply their skills across borders is a good thing. I am very happy to argue for that level of occupancy-equivalent recognition across jurisdictions because it would help everyone, including our nurses. If Federal Treasurer Chalmers is prepared to consider that, that is great. If he is prepared to consider that in a future round, that is just as good. That is the point of being able to partner with the Federal Government on commonsense reform. I appreciate the fact that, with this Federal Treasurer, we can have fights and we might not agree on everything but, when we agree on what is good for the nation and for New South Wales, we can work together.
Read the full transcript in Hansard here.
13 November 2024