Interview with Peter Stefanovic, First Edition

26 February 2024

PETER STEFANOVIC: Let's send it over to Canberra. Now. Joining us is the Shadow Finance Minister Jane Hume. Jane good to see you. Thanks for your time this morning as always. Newspoll and Resolve both out today and both paint a similar picture when it comes to the government. A drop in support, despite the stage three rejig. A timely boost for you perhaps ahead of this weekend?

JANE HUME: Well, there'll be plenty more polls to go before we get to the one that matters on election day, but I suppose what I'm hearing when I'm out on the booths in Dunkley for early voting last week was that the government has failed to meet the expectations of voters. They're really doing it tough out there right now, of course, they're going to happily pocket whatever they can that the government hands out. But the cynical ploy of breaking a promise to reverse those stage three tax cuts. It hasn't really manifested in more popularity for Anthony Albanese. Anthony Albanese did turn up, we noticed to the polls on Sunday, which was, you know, very good of him to find the time between concerts, between Taylor Swift and Katy Perry. It's good to say that he went out to Dunkley on Sunday instead of making it the trifecta and going to Blink 182.

PETER STEFANOVIC: I know we spoke about this last week, but what would you see as a good result this weekend?

JANE HUME: Well, it's a big margin there's no doubt about it. 6.3% would not be considered a marginal set in any other circumstances. But the mood on the ground is one of anger towards this government that they haven't been focused on the priorities of the people of Dunkley, and instead have been focused on their own priorities. And you saw that in the Voice referendum. They spent the first 18 months of this government focusing on the Voice referendum, after saying that the cost of living was the number one issue. The Coalition, however, has been focusing on the cost of living that's why we set up the Cost of Living Committee the moment that we went into opposition and have been focusing on that ever since. So there is some, look, it's going to be tough. There is no doubt about it. But we have a terrific candidate down there in Nathan Conroy who has been the Mayor three times. He has demonstrated a commitment to the community. He's an Irishman that's become an Australian, and has a young family there. He's really really community focused and he's delivered already for the city of Frankston. And planners for him to deliver for the broader electorate of Dunkley.

PETER STEFANOVIC: On the RBA Jade as things stand will you support or oppose a second RBA governance board that would be made up of economists?

JANE HUME: Well, the Coalition and Angus Taylor specifically has worked very constructively with the government has had an open mind about these RBA reforms. But there have been some sticking points and he's been consistent with that from the start. One of them is not necessarily the setting up of a monetary policy board and a governance board, but the wholesale transfer of the existing board to the governance board rather than the monetary policy board. Let's face it, these people were brought in for their expertise in monetary policy, not necessarily governance. So there doesn't need to be a change way of stacking out that doesn't need to be a wholesale change of the whole board staying in it as a governance board rather than a monetary policy board. Their expertise is in monetary policy. So why not translate that monetary policy board that's very important.

PETER STEFANOVIC: So would the danger be you know, you've got too many chefs in the kitchen?

JANE HUME: No, it's quite the opposite. What you want is the experts in the field and particularly the validity-

PETER STEFANOVIC: No, no but if Jim Chalmers continues with two separate boards so to speak, with the, would that be the danger there that you've got too many chefs in the kitchen?

JANE HUME: No, no, I think we actually agree with the idea of the two separate boards. What we don't agree with is moving the current board to the governance board. We would like to see the government the current board transmit to the monetary policy board. That's their area of expertise. That's what they're good at. That's what they were hired to do. So why not let them do their job, particularly the period that we've seen volatility and interest rates, having that corporate memory from the decision making, why we've had to increase rates and now hopefully, what the indicators are to bring them back down. That's what we want to see in a monetary policy board. Now the idea that the government could essentially, you know, wholesale, remove the current board and stack out a new board. That's something that sits very uncomfortably with us and should sit very uncomfortably with all Australians. Now we'll act constructively here. We have an open mind, but we want to make sure that any negotiations that we have with the government are done in good faith and in the spirit of maintaining the bipartisan and independent nature of the RBA.

PETER STEFANOVIC: Okay, well, I did want to ask you about whether or not the Treasurer of the day should be allowed to oppose an RBA decision on rates if it wants to. This was brought up by Peter Costello last week.

JANE HUME: We think that they should. Yeah, look, there's a Senate inquiry looking into these changes in the RBA? And this is one of the things that they're considering. And you know, quite frankly, we don't think that there is a good reason to change that. In fact, it keeps the RBA more independent if the government can override them. It means that the RBA Board can make decisions entirely independent of what the government thinks but don't look to government for indications of what it is that they would like to do. That way we can make sure that we make the very best decisions on interest rates.

PETER STEFANOVIC: Jane Hume, good to have you with us. We'll chat to you again soon.