BEN FORDHAM:
Treasurer, Jim Chalmers on the line from Canberra. Treasurer, good morning to you.
JIM CHALMERS:
Good morning, Ben. How are you?
FORDHAM:
Good. You’re not afraid of throwing the cash around?
CHALMERS:
There’s substantial cost‑of‑living relief in the Budget, but it’s responsible as well. You know, it’s pretty restrained spending in the Budget, but it does recognise that people are under a lot of pressure. And because of the Budget last night, more help is on the way.
FORDHAM:
Households will receive a $300 taxpayer funded energy rebate. It’s not means tested. So, even Gina Rinehart gets the $300. Now, you’re a straight shooter. You’ll acknowledge that Gina Rinehart, she gets the $300 too?
CHALMERS:
Every household in Australia gets energy bill relief and every taxpayer gets a tax cut from the Budget. And that’s because the primary focus here is on Australians who are doing it tough. Not necessarily people at the top end of the income scale, but once you go beyond providing this energy bill relief to people on pensions and payments, which are a high priority for us, once you go into middle Australia, you have to invent kind of costly new schemes because the retailers don’t have people’s income information. And so, we found the simplest, easiest way to get more help to more people. The emphasis here is on middle Australia, the people who listen to you each morning Ben, we know that they need cost‑of‑living help, and they’ll receive it because of our Budget.
FORDHAM:
But Gina’s worth $30 billion. Why does she get it?
CHALMERS:
Well, every household gets it for the reason that I’ve just described. Whether it’s a tax cut for every taxpayer, whether it’s energy bill relief for every household. Some of our cost‑of‑living relief is broad. Some of it is more targeted. There’s rent assistance, there’s cheaper medicines, there’s help with student debt. And all of this together means that we can provide cost‑of‑living relief for people who are genuinely under pressure at the same time as we put downward pressure on inflation, which is the big challenge in our economy.
FORDHAM:
Yeah, that’s the risk, right. With all this money being thrown around, adding to inflation, and we’re worried about rates going up again.
CHALMERS:
Well, by taking this thing out of energy bills for people and by taking some of the edge off rent for almost a million people, putting downward pressure on bills means putting downward pressure on inflation. We’ve seen when we’ve provided this kind of help in the past that it pushes down the inflation number, which is what we’re all trying to do. And so, what we did last night is more of that, putting downward pressure on inflation at the same time as we ease cost of living by taking some of the sting out of these bills.
FORDHAM:
Jim Chalmers is with us, the federal Treasurer. You’re spending $468 million of our money to catch fraudsters ripping off the NDIS. Now, the cost of the scheme is still growing, though. If you look at the Budget papers and this crackdown, isn’t it further evidence that Bill Shorten has failed to do his job?
CHALMERS:
No, I think Bill Shorten’s doing a terrific job making sure that we can continue to provide the services that the scheme was designed to provide for people who need and deserve our help and our support. But to do that in a way that gets value for money. And I’m pleased that you mentioned that investment that we’re making in making sure that people aren’t ripping off the scheme. You know, overwhelmingly people are doing the right thing, but there are always people who are trying to rip off schemes like this. And so, Bill has done, with our support, a heap of great work, trying to make sure that even as the scheme continues to grow and continues to cost more, that we’re getting genuine value for money for that.
FORDHAM:
Alright, well, I’m not sure about that. And look, Bill knows all about this, but we’ve contacted Mr Shorten over many, many years now and highlighted businesses that offer brothel visits and selling crystal wands and going to the weed festival in Nimbin, all on the NDIS. Those things are still happening. If those things had been eliminated earlier, we wouldn’t be under the pressure we’re under now?
CHALMERS:
Well, we’re on the case. You know, we’re making sure that the dollars in the scheme are going to the people who need the services and the help and the support. I think it’s an important thing we do, that we can continue to support people on the NDIS, but the costs of it are growing really strongly. They still are. But part of our efforts is to make sure we’re cracking down on people who might be trying to rort it.
FORDHAM:
Okay, you announced last night that the maximum cost of drugs on the PBS for pensioners will be frozen at $7.70 over the next 5 years. Now this sounds good, but could it mean that some people will actually end up paying more because chemists currently have the option to discount medicine on the PBS by $1, and they do that at their own expense. I know that Chemist Warehouse who advertise with us, they do that. So, instead of paying $7.70, pensioners have been paying $6.70. But we’re told that that discount will be phased out over the next 5 years.
CHALMERS:
Over time, I think that’s an important point. There are changes to that dollar discount, but people will be ahead as a consequence of the changes that we’re making. By freezing that for 5 years – you would talk to a lot of pensioners Ben, I certainly do. Both of our jobs require that, I think. And it’s good to stay grounded in terms of the pressures that people are under, particularly older people who might have higher medicine bills. And by freezing this PBS for 5 years, we make sure that people are making savings over time, even with those changes to the dollar discount.
FORDHAM:
Alright. But Chemist Warehouse says that at the moment out of their own pocket, they give the pensioners the $1 discount on their scripts. They say this costs the government nothing. In real terms, it costs Chemist Warehouse $20 million a year. They say, we’re happy to pay it. But now you step in during a cost‑of‑living crisis and say no to Chemist Warehouse offering that $1 discount.
CHALMERS:
It’s not quite that simple. It’s over time. It gets phased out over time just because of the changes in the indexation arrangements. This is not about having a shot at Chemist Warehouse. They’re important parts of our communities as well as the local community pharmacies. What we’re doing here, we’re making a big investment to make medicines cheaper for people. Almost half a billion dollars as part of a bigger $3 billion plan. And things we’ve done in earlier budgets too have made medicines cheaper. This is a really important part of the cost‑of‑living pressures that people are under. We’ve talked about energy, we’ve talked about tax, and we’ve talked about rent. But a big part of the Budget is making medicines cheaper for people as well and we’re proud that we have.
FORDHAM:
Ok, we’ve got a question here from one of our listeners, Steve. There’s $20 million left over from the Voice campaign, we’re told, and it’s not going to go towards things like truth and treaty. It’s going to be spent on practical outcomes. That’s what we were told last night. He says $20 million left over from the Voice is BS, the National Indigenous Australians Agency, had a $4 billion budget. Its 2 missions in its annual report were to make the Voice happen and close the gap. The Voice would have been budgeted at roughly half their budget, so $1.5 billion. The Voice program stopped short halfway through the 2023–2024 Budget year. So, out of $1.5 billion, there’s only $20 million left over, he says. I would have expected more like $700 million. So, is that a fair point that Steve’s making?
CHALMERS:
No, I don’t think it is. Respectfully to Steve. You know, there was a commitment last year to the Voice referendum and some of the associated spending. The first part of his contribution was right, that some of that money has been redirected to practical outcomes. But the agency that he’s referring to is overwhelmingly focused on closing the gap in outcomes and the big investments that we made in the Budget were around housing and jobs and their investments in health as well, and they’re important.
FORDHAM:
I know that you’ve got a tight schedule this morning, so we’ll have to wrap this up pretty quickly, but New South Wales will be $1.3 billion worse off under this Budget. Would you like the opportunity to say sorry about that, Treasurer? I’m giving you the opportunity right now. The floor is yours.
CHALMERS:
New South Wales does really well out of the Budget. A heap of new infrastructure projects with a big emphasis on Western Sydney, new housing investment, new health investments. New South Wales is a big beneficiary of our Budget.
FORDHAM:
But we’re $1.3 billion worse off.
CHALMERS:
Some of the GST is down because consumption’s down and it applies to everyone. Some of it is a consequence of the independent determinations of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. But if you look right across the Budget, New South Wales, big winners out of our Budget. Billions and billions of dollars in new investment, including in infrastructure in Western Sydney.
FORDHAM:
Right. If that’s the case, why are your Labor colleagues in New South Wales claiming to be ripped off?
CHALMERS:
Well, I like those guys, they’re friends of mine. But it’s not unprecedented for states to say that they would like more money from the Commonwealth. That’s a story as old as Federation. I deal with Daniel Mookhey. Terrific treasurer. I deal with him respectfully. And Chris Minns as well, a great premier that you’ve got there, but it’s not unusual or unprecedented for states, whether it’s New South Wales or other states, to say that they would like more money, of course they would.
FORDHAM:
We’d love to have a longer chat at some stage away from the Budget, where we can talk about a few other things. So, maybe we can do that sometime soon. I really appreciate you jumping on the line.
CHALMERS:
Good on you, Ben. Thanks so much.
FORDHAM:
Good on you. Jim Chalmers, the federal Treasurer.