JIM CHALMERS:
The Budget was handed down in the service of our immediate priorities and our generational responsibilities. It was all about helping the most vulnerable people while also supporting middle Australia, and investing in the future of our people and growth in the economy. And what we've been able to do is to show that we can provide some cost‑of‑living relief for people without adding to inflation. And economists have pointed out in the last couple of days, that they consider the steps taken in the Budget to be broadly neutral when it comes to inflation. The Treasury has been incredibly clear that elements of our cost‑of‑living plan will actually take some of the edge off the inflation forecast next year, particularly our energy relief plan. Our Budget has been carefully calibrated to address these cost‑of‑living pressures in our economy without adding to inflation and I'm very confident that that is what they will do. Now, this is a Budget for all of Australia. It pays particular attention to the most vulnerable but it provides substantial help right through the middle Australia, because we recognise that Australians are under the pump.
Now tonight, Peter Dutton has to put an end to this ridiculous charade from his party, which is pretending at the same time that we should both spend less and spend more in the Budget. Angus Taylor says we shouldn't be providing this cost‑of‑living relief. Sussan Ley suggests we should be providing more cost‑of‑living relief. Peter Dutton needs to put an end to this division. Peter Dutton is a divisive figure, but he's not a credible figure. Peter Dutton takes his cues from Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison. Everybody's moved on from Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison except for Peter Dutton. His strategy is to divide Australians, to pit Australians against each other in the aftermath of this Budget. Our Budget is about bringing people together, support for the vulnerable support for middle Australia, and key investments in opportunities and future growth in the economy. That is our priority as a government. Tonight, Peter Dutton will play the usual divisive politics, in the aftermath of the Budget. He will try and divide people, he will try and pit Australians against Australians, but the Budget is designed to bring people together.
JOURNALIST:
Truckies are blowing up about the increase of the heavy user charge, farmers are blowing up too about the change for the biosecurity levy, what's your response to them? And how can you be confident that this isn't going to jack up cost‑of‑living problems for Australia?
CHALMERS:
Well, the road user charge was introduced by John Howard in 2006 and it's been a feature of the Budget for some time. It is decided by a combination of state and territory governments, Labor and Liberal, and the Federal Infrastructure Minister. And the choice was between a 10 per cent increase and a 6 per cent increase - and we went with a 6 per cent increase. And this is the usual operation of the road user charge that John Howard introduced in 2006. When it comes to biosecurity, we need to fund the system. The worst thing that can happen for Australia's agriculture sector, which is central to our economy and to our economic prospects is to see biosecurity outbreaks. We need to make sure that we can resource the effort that we're putting in to protect our local industry, and that's what the Budget reflects.
JOURNALIST:
Your colleague Don Farrell is on his way to China at the moment, can Australian producers expect an end to those tariffs?
CHALMERS:
We've made it very clear for some time now that we would like to see an end to those restrictive trade practices, which have implications for our local employers and exporters. We've made no secret of the fact that we think it's in the interests of both countries for those trade sanctions to be lifted. There has been some progress made in the course of this government. We want to stabilise the relationship with China and we want a region which is stable and secure and peaceful and prosperous. We've got a lot to lose from trade sanctions and we've got a lot to gain from markets which operate in the usual way. So we've made it clear that that's our priority. I won't speak for Don, this is a complex relationship to manage, and Don and Penny and all of the team is managing the best we can.
JOURNALIST:
Treasurer, on those potential resolutions for those trade disputes and trade sanctions, would that be a welcome boost to the budget, say in 6 months or 12 months’ time? You obviously haven't factored those into this Budget but that would help the budget bottom line in the long run. And secondly, if I may, the Shadow Treasurer is saying that this Budget gives with one hand and takes with the other. Would you concede that as Treasurer, one of the difficult parts of your job is - inevitably in a Budget, some of that has to happen - that some people won't be as well off as other people?
CHALMERS:
Well, first of all, on the implications of the trade sanctions, our primary concern here is the consequences for our employers and our exporters when these trade sanctions are imposed, and that's why we want to see them lifted. And why we want to see the relationship stabilised in the interests of our economy. We're not primarily focused on the budget implications of that, we're focused on the implications for our local employers and exporters. And when it comes to the Budget, if Angus Taylor thinks that we shouldn't be providing cost‑of‑living help for people who are doing a tough then he should just say so. If Peter Dutton thinks that we shouldn't be providing cost‑of‑living assistance to people who are under the pump, he should say too, he should say so tonight, because right now what they appear to be saying is that people need more help and less help simultaneously. And what they're trying to do is they're trying to divide our society in the aftermath of the Budget, that's the only play that they know. And I suspect we'll see more of that tonight. What the Budget does, is it provides substantial support for middle Australia, we've got wages moving again for workers after a decade of deliberate suppression and stagnation. We're providing help via the bulk billing incentive, there are measures for training, our gas, and coal caps are moderating the increases in electricity prices. All of this is designed for the benefit of middle Australia, as well as cheaper early childhood education, which some of you have given us stick about being too generous to middle Australia over the course of the last year or so. So substantial help for middle Australia, but also for the most vulnerable. If the Coalition doesn't support any of that they should say so.
JOURNALIST:
One of those immediate pressures you've talked about is housing, who needs to give a bit to break this stalemate in the Senate? What do you need to do? What do the Greens need to do to get this through?
CHALMERS:
Well, we have provided, we have moved in the negotiations around the Housing Australia Future Fund. And Julie Collins is doing a terrific job trying to get this through the parliament. I should say good morning to Jacqui on her way past. Good morning Jacqui.
JOURNALIST:
She’s on board for housing, how do you get the rest of them?
CHALMERS:
We appreciate your support for housing, Jacqui.
JACQUI LAMBIE:
Oh anytime, and I’ll tell you what, the sooner we get that Foundation down the better. Every day those Greens stop that, those people are living out there in those bloody tents.
CHALMERS:
Couldn't have said it better. We do appreciate Jacqui Lambie's support for the Housing Australia Future Fund. And we are trying to work constructively with the Senate crossbench to get this passed. It beggars belief, frankly, when we've got all this pressure on housing, that the Greens and the Coalition have teamed up in this unholy alliance against the building of more social and affordable housing. It beggars belief, frankly. And so we want to get that passed through the parliament. We've also got new tax breaks for build to rent properties in the Budget that I handed down on Tuesday night. And that'll be important to build more affordable properties. And we're helping people with Commonwealth Rent Assistance, the biggest increase in 30 years.
JOURNALIST:
Could your Budget tip the scales for another interest rate rise?
CHALMERS:
Well, I don't speak for the independent Reserve Bank. And they weigh up a whole range of considerations, not just the government's Budget. They weigh up the international conditions, they weigh up what's been happening, for example, to retail in the last couple of retail releases, which have been very soft. And they factor all of that in, I don't speak on behalf of the Reserve Bank or the board. But I do know this, the Budget is carefully calibrated to take the edge off cost‑of‑living pressures without adding to inflation. I'm confident that that is the case, the Treasury is confident that that is the case and a number of economists have backed us in.
JOURNALIST:
I just want to follow that up. Obviously, the Reserve Bank is independent. But do you consult them at all on the Budget and say, hey, what do you think this would do for inflation and how would this affect your end?
CHALMERS:
Well, I don't speak to them about their future interest rate decisions. I don't think it's appropriate with the independence that I cherish. I don't speak to them or try and influence their interest rate decisions. But I do speak to the Governor about my policies, about my Budgets, and the fiscal stance of the government. I do that in advance of releasing the Budget and I do it after releasing the Budget. That is entirely appropriate. I think it would actually be negligent if I didn't do that. I speak to the Governor from time to time, I speak to him about what I'm doing, I don't try and influence what he's doing.
JOURNALIST:
Will there be a second surplus next year? Some analysts reckon you've undercooked or under‑egged some of the commodity prices in the Budget?
CHALMERS:
Well, I'm not going to write and release the 2024 Budget a couple of days after releasing the 2023 Budget. I've seen that commentary and I acknowledge that commentary. I think there are good reasons to be cautious and conservative and careful, and to not get ahead of ourselves when it comes to some of those assumptions. I hope that you've noticed in the course of the last week or so that I take a different approach to my predecessor when it comes to the budget position. I think it's important to be cautious, there are good historical reasons and other reasons for that to be the case. I'm not walking around here with Back in Black mugs, and handing them out. It's not a big pat on the back when it comes to the forecast surplus for '22 – ‘23. I will continue to manage the budget in a responsible and cautious and methodical way. And part of that is not getting ahead of ourselves.
JOURNALIST:
Treasurer, can I just quickly ask, on the heavy vehicle road user charge ‑ are you worried that it will increase freight costs and those freight costs could then be passed on to consumers in the supermarket?
CHALMERS:
That's not my concern. What we need to do here is to recognise that the road user charge which was introduced by John Howard in 2006 is one of the ways that we fund the road network which is absolutely essential to supporting this really important industry. And the way this number is determined, the states and territories get together. It was still a Liberal government in New South Wales who supported it and a Liberal government in Tasmania that supported it. And all of the states and territories choosing between a 10 per cent road user charge and a 6 per cent road user charge, and we landed on 6 per cent, on the lower number. But it's an important part of funding the road network. It recognises that this industry is absolutely central to our economy. And that in order to get goods to market, we need to make sure the roads are up to scratch and that's what the road user charge is all about, and that's why John Howard introduced it. Thanks very much.