Peta Credlin:
Coming up, Kel Richards had some pretty topical words for this week, but now to the looming budget and that damning assessment today from former New South Wales premier, Mike Baird, who’s warned that Australia’s no longer a low debt nation and that we’ve got to confront our unsustainable fiscal settings. That comes at the time, of course, that the treasurer, Jim Charmers, is looking to ramp up vote buying spending. Here to discuss this and more, Sky News host, Jaimee Rogers, and the deputy director at the Institute of Public Affairs, Dan Wild. Well, welcome to you both. Dan, this is a warning from Mike Baird. It won’t be the last warning we get. We’ve also had warnings today from the former labour appointed secretary to the treasury, Martin Parkinson. He’s talking about stagflation, for goodness’ sake.
Daniel Wild:
Well, that’s right. This has been a long time coming. We’ve had governments at the state and federal level spending money they just don’t have. COVID was a massive accelerant of that, but in a way, COVID masked the deep structural spending that’s been embedded at state and federal level budgets. The NDIS is the prime example at a federal level, growing at something like three times the entire rate as our economy with no plan to pay it back. As you mentioned, Martin Parkinson, former treasury secretary saying stagflation, which is high inflation and high unemployment, a return to the 1970s style price and wage spiral. So you look at the government and what is the government actually talking about? They’re not talking about anything that’s going to fix these issues, and as you’ve rightly identified, when we look at the budget coming up in a bit over a month, it’s just going to be more spending to get more votes.
Peta Credlin:
Let’s go to that landmark Fair Work Commission ruling, if I can, Jaimee. This is to phase in 42% pay rises for youth workers. So this is 18, 19, 20 year olds, people who don’t have any experience, they just want to get their foot on the jobs ladder. It’s been hailed as fairness by the unions. Now, my concern here is they then will go up again in terms of their cost to the employer, up against people who are 21, 22, 23, so still young workers, but young workers with experience. So if you’re a business owner, would you take – you’re paying the same amount now – the 20-year old with no experience, the 19-year old with no experience, or the 22-year old with a bit of experience? And given that AI is about to hit this sector and hit them hard, I reckon that’s the last time, the last time you do something like this.
Jamiee Rogers:
Yeah, you’re absolutely spot on there, Peta, and it’s also worth mentioning that the union called this a monumentous decision and they compared it to women getting fair equal pay back in the 70s. And when I read that, I thought you could not be more worlds apart of this decision. Because of the impact, first of all, to your point, 18 to 20 year olds, after six months in a job which is when they’re then entitled to that 42% pay rise, you’re still learning, you’re still inexperienced, and that’s why you get the lowest salaries. I remember on my first ever job, my mom saying to me, “You should be so grateful because an employer is paying you to learn,” and that’s the whole point of why you get these introductory jobs, and also, these adults that will be getting the equal pay are probably still helping train these younger people.
So I think that in the end, 18, 19, maybe 20 year olds are really going to struggle to get that first job and get their foot in the door, and we’re also rewarding just this real sense of entitlement. Whatever happened to having to work hard and really then earn your way to increase your salary?
But I also look at the flip side, Peta, how are businesses supposed to be able to afford this? A 42% rise, they’re already struggling to keep their doors open with sky rise energy prices and rents and just everything else going up. They’re not going to be putting the junior staff on at all, and in fact, they’re probably going to be cutting their staff hours in general just to be able to keep the doors open.
Peta Credlin:
You are not wrong. Now, I don’t want this issue to get missed. It was a huge topic a couple of months ago, and I know we’re talking about Iran and everything else, but this is incredibly important. A Senate inquiry has found serious systemic failures in Australia’s childcare sector. They also reference that the sector has been targeted by paedophile networks. They’ve looked at things like weak screening, regulatory gaps, misleading quality ratings, parents not being given the information they need to make a good decision about where they place their children, and of course, Dan, I’ll go back to this issue again. $16 billion we spend as taxpayers every single year, but you only get the money if you put your child in a unionised childcare centre. We can see from this report and all parties were in this report. It’s not a Liberal Party report. The Greens and Labour and everybody else has contributed. The system is broken. Parents need the money themselves to make the right choices for them and their family. This is not working.
Daniel Wild:
Well, that’s right, and I think one of the reasons people don’t want to talk about it is it’s too psychologically disjointing to do so. It goes to something fundamental in our society, which is, as you’ve said, we are set up to be a two income society. Basically, everybody has to work all the time to pay back these massive mortgages, and you only get the childcare subsidy to go to one of these childcare centres. And so if you want to go somewhere else, you can, but you’re not getting the subsidy to do so, and most people who would prefer to do that can’t afford it. So surely, this has to be the moment whereby we look at the system and we say we need to have fundamental reform. If we’re having $16 billion a year from the federal government to go to these things, well, why can’t it go direct to families for them to use it in a way that they see as fit? I think that that is something that makes sense, it’s something that will be supported, it’s something that gives flexibility. I just think now’s the time to do it.
Peta Credlin:
Just quickly, Jaimee, at the top of the show, I talked about all these failures. The prime minister to his government are really great at the announcement, out goes a press release, and then the delivery falls away. It just does not happen as they promise. First cab off the rank there that I wanted to talk about specifically now is this national gun buyback. In all the hoopla after Bondi, this was the prime minister’s response. Well, the deadline to sign up for the states was last night. The majority have not signed up, so it’s an extinct policy. It is a joke.
Jamiee Rogers:
Yeah, that’s a very good way of putting it, Peta, because it is an absolute joke. And let’s not forget that it was actually New South Wales premier, Chris Minns, who was the first person to come out with the idea of the gun buy back scheme, and also to have a state Royal Commission, and it felt as though Anthony Albanese was almost running behind him and copying a lot of the decisions that he did, and I think it’s a huge concern. We have a leader right now and a government who aren’t able to make these strong decisions and actually follow through with some of the ideas that they have, or if they do, they’re not done properly. It is extremely concerning, and I will be interested to see what the prime minister has to say at seven o’clock tonight.
Peta Credlin:
Yeah, you can copy Howard all you like, but you’ve got to do what Howard did, not just say what Howard said. I’ll leave it there. Thank you, Jaimee.
This transcript of Daniel Wild on Credlin Sky News Australia from 1 April 2026 has been edited for clarity.
