Interview with Andrew Clennell, Sunday Agenda, Sky News

Shadow Minister for Industry and Innovation - Transcript - Interview with Andrew Clennell, Sunday Agenda, Sky News, 17 August 2025

Topics: Productivity roundtable, union demands, taxation, industrial relations, tariffs, regulation of artificial intelligence, recognition of Palestinian statehood, President Trump’s meeting with Mr Putin, Leader of the Opposition

Andrew Clennell, host: Alex, what are your expectations out of the round table this week and what did you make of what the Treasurer had to say there?

Hawke: We don't have a lot of expectations listening to Jim Chalmers this morning because he talks about his big productivity agenda, but what is it? He says the government's already got a big productivity agenda. He's not able to name what the government's done on productivity. And it's after four years in government, he's basically saying, let's have a roundtable and I'll hear all the best ideas and we'll come up with something. But they're already ruling out most of the productivity measures that you would take in this economy if you wanted to do something about productivity.

Host: So he made the point, why is Ted O'Brien going if he's saying there's no point to the thing, which seems to be what you're saying. So what's your argument back to that?

Hawke: Well, look, we've taken the invite. I think we should participate. Ted's got some good views, but he's put down some markers. He just spoke on Friday about our markers, and they are we don't want to see higher taxes, which the government won't rule out. We don't want to see higher costs on business, and we don't want to see the generational, intergenerational equity problem just put parking onto debt into the future. There should be real productivity measures come out of this roundtable. And, of course, we'll participate. And if we can try and push the government to take some real productivity measures, we will.

Host: Economists have been saying for a while that, you know, you can tax, lift the GST. We know that's in other countries much bigger. He and Anthony Albanese just couldn't be clearer, could they? Don't want to look at that. What do you think of that?

Hawke: Well, I think that's the challenge the government's got. What are they going to do about productivity? They're certainly not going to do anything in industrial relations. You can bet your bottom dollar with the union movement aggressively front-running this summit, saying let's abolish the Productivity Commission, that was the AMWU, the ACTU calling for higher taxes, Sally McManus saying tax for family home. I mean, none of these measures are going to improve productivity so they're not going to do anything about IR. You won't see, I think, tax reform, the government's ruling out broad scale tax reform, saying no GST changes, no changes in general. So what are they going to do about productivity? Associating themselves with things like AI isn't government sector measures. You know, the AI is a measure that's happening in the private sector and making its own productivity way through the economy.

Host: And is tax reform something, you know, judging on the John Hewson example, too hard to advocate for from opposition, do you think?

Hawke: Well, tax reform's always hard for governments and opposition, and there's no doubt it's hard now. But let's look, you know, government in general is taking a record tax take, record company receipts, record income tax receipts, and spending is through the roof as well. So there's more money being taken out of the private sector economy. We know 80% of the jobs growth is coming from non-market jobs, that's government jobs. Private sector investment is at 1%. So the government ought to urgently be looking at measures that will increase private sector investment, increase the size of the private sector economy, and you don't do that with higher taxes and more regulation.

Host: Well, from your side of politics, you'd probably look then at some sort of IR reform and company tax cuts, wouldn't you?

Hawke: Absolutely. We have to look at productivity reforms that will actually change the economy. And there's no doubt we're looking at our tax balance and our productivity balance. Certainly, industrial relations is one of the ways that you can indeed achieve better, and AI provides an opportunity for that.

Host: What, in industrial relations, needs to change in your view?

Hawke: Well, there's so many things. I mean, the government has taken us backwards many, decades with the way they run their systems. You know, there is plenty of good low-hanging fruit there. We think many of the changes they made the last term will actually reduce productivity even further, including changes to many of the casual things: the gig economy, the regulation of the gig economy, was really over the top and they're continuing to pursue that.

Host: What do you make of this concept of a road user charge? Do you think that's something the government should be looking at?

Hawke: Well, I think the tax mix has to be looked at there. Obviously, Chris Bowen's got his EV policies, which is if the Prime Minister is against, you know, regressive taxes, well, this is a regressive measure as well. People who get an EV with lower incomes pay more for it than people who have high incomes, and that's a point the Shadow Treasurer made the other day as well. So this policy is actually a counter to the Prime Minister's own view about regressive taxation.

Host: Jim Chalmers just spoke about reducing some more so-called nuisance tariffs. Is that something you'd support?

Hawke: Well, of course, yeah. But I think that's no substitute for actual economic reform.So sometimes people, when they don't have a big agenda, and this government doesn't seem to have a big agenda on tax and the economy, they say, ‘oh, look, we've done these 10 tiny little things here that don't impact a lot of people and they don't raise any money, and that's reform’. Well that is just a clean up of some pretty low hanging fruit and that isn't a substitute for actual meaningful things that will get productivity moving.

Host: So why do you think they're holding this? I mean I struggled there to try and get Jim Chalmers to say it was the Prime Minister's idea. That makes me think it's his idea. What do you think the purpose of this is, if you're so convinced they're not about real reform, or was Jim Chalmers about it and Anthony Albanese said, hang on there, or what's your theory on it?

Hawke: We're convinced after four years the government doesn't really have a substantial economic agenda. I mean, the first term they held their job summit and most captains of industry and business people actually were sleeping through the job summit and the unions just gave their shopping list of things and nothing really came out of it except for more regulation inside our labour market. That was the outcome of the job summit. Now this summit, again, it doesn't feel like the government has an economic agenda that it wants to actually implement. And we know that the Treasurer and the Prime Minister are at odds about whether it's even a productivity summit or whether it's something else.

Host: Well, they're saying it's not a summit. In fact, it's a roundtable.

Hawke: They've not just changed the name. I don't believe the Treasurer and the Prime Minister actually agree on what's happening at this summit.

Host: Government's super tax plan, where do you think that's at and what do you think of this proposal by Jim Chalmers' friend Andrew Fraser for a cap on super? You can't have more than $5 million in a super fund.

Hawke: Well, our criticism of unrealised capital gains and the tax on superannuation that the government's making is they're shifting the goalposts in a way that is very threatening to the long-term confidence in our superannuation system. And that's a point that Paul Keating has made. The government's been misleading about how many people will be swept up in this kind of a tax change. They said 80,000. Now, clearly, it's going to be millions of people caught up in the changes the governments are proposing by the time this is implemented.

Host: Do you think it'll get through the parliament?

Hawke: Well, the government and the Greens can put it through the parliament, but we'll be opposing it all the way and highlighting that millions of ordinary Australians will end up being swept up in unrealised capital gains taxes.

Host: In the industry space, there's been some talk about regulation of artificial intelligence. Jim Chalmers has said he'd be on the side of a soft touch on that. Unions obviously want a fair regulation on it. Ed Husic wants to go further. Where are you and the Coalition on it?

Hawke: Well, we were the ones that set out the ethical principles when we were in government, and we think that's a good model. We do need some guardrails put in. The government hasn't yet outlined its approach. You've got the Attorney General, Minister Rowland, saying that she wants to regulate and then you've got Minister Ayres saying that there's no need for an Act. So the government can't decide whether it needs an Act or not. Now we do think that there is a need to update those ethical principles to continue to move down what are the things that need to be thought about and protected from a regulation of AI. But of course, the labour movement is pushing to have the unions at the forefront of writing AI legislation. Now, there's only one thing that could kill the productivity benefits, the human-changing, world-shaping benefits of AI, and that is the Australian union movement getting involved in the regulation of it.

Host: The government made its decision to recognise Palestine last week. What did you make of that?

Hawke: Well, the Coalition's been clear about that. I think it's badly timed for Australia. I don't think the Prime Minister has thought this through. It's been something in his personal slate for a very long time. You can go back decades and see Anthony Albanese advocating for a Palestinian state. But was now the right time for Australia to change its position on recognition, given our difficult relationship that the government has at the moment with the President of the United States and the U.S., the difficult environment for our businesses in the trade environment? Changing our position on Palestine will have diplomatic consequences, and I'm not sure Anthony Albanese has weighed that up.

Host: Donald Trump's meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska, does that give you any hope in terms of a peace settlement, or was that a bad look for Donald Trump, rolling out the red carpet for Putin?

Hawke: No, like the government we would welcome any initiative to get peace if it was real peace and the end to this conflict. That would have to be on Ukrainian terms. We do support the government on that. The coalition has been a steadfast supporter of Ukraine and in government we have expressed bipartisan support for that when we were in government, when we left government. But, of course, there has to be a path to peace, and we hope that this kind of a process will produce a more peaceful outcome.

Host: Just finally, you've been a supporter of Sussan Ley’s for many years. Do you think she'll survive the term as Opposition Leader? Opposition leaders don't always, of course.

Hawke: No, I do. I think, look, things have changed. We've been reduced to a very small amount of members. So the public has less appetite, I think, for changing leaders after a decade of both sides changing leaders regularly. I think Sussan's been given a fresh start by the public. When you change leader, I think there's a new conversation you can have with new generations, with new communities. And I think Sussan started that well. And it gives us the chance to be listened to again. And while we're in such a minority position, we have to take every opportunity to be listened to.

Host: Shadow Industry Minister Alex Hawke, thanks so much for your time.

ENDS