LAURA TINGLE:
An issue that’s been buzzing around the building this morning, Treasurer, which would be good to get some clarity on is you’ve done a lot for women’s equality in this Budget, particularly for single mothers, as you say. But for single parenting payment recipients, they haven’t been included in the $40 increase to most other recipients, which seems to be, you know, unfortunate to say the least, given the pressures they’re under and what you’ve been trying to do for them by increasing the age limit. Why aren’t they included?
JIM CHALMERS:
Well, the $40 base rate increase to JobSeeker and some of the other working age payments was all about addressing the lowest payments in the system. When it comes to Parenting Payment Single what we’ve done is quite dramatically expand the eligibility for that. I pay tribute to Anthony and Katy and Amanda Rishworth for the work that they’ve done on that, but also the community advocates. And what it means is if you’re on Parenting Payment Single, the difference between that and JobSeeker is about $177 a fortnight. And so Parenting Payment Single is already a higher rate – about 95 per cent of the age pension as I understand it. We’re expanding eligibility for it, and we’re introducing more generous income arrangements for it as well. And so our motivations there, the way that we went about making that decision, was to give the base rate increase to the lowest payments. And this particular payment, which more people are eligible for and can work more and still receive it, is already $177 bigger than JobSeeker.
TINGLE:
The next question is from Michelle Grattan.
MICHELLE GRATTAN:
Michelle Grattan from The Conversation. Treasurer, apart from your program for disadvantaged communities, there doesn’t seem to be much in this Budget to try to use this time of a very tight labour market to get longer‑term unemployed people into the workforce. Do you think this should be a priority? Are you satisfied with the employment services in that they’re attending to this? And will you make it a central feature of the jobs – the white paper on employment that is to come?
CHALMERS:
Thanks, Michelle. And yes, I will and yes, we are. Workforce participation is one of it big driving forces behind so much of what we’ve done in the first 12 months and it will be a big influence on our thinking on what we do from here. The Employment White Paper is the perfect opportunity for us to consider some of these questions. There’s a committee being led by Julian Hill with other colleagues on it looking at employment services, and clearly we can do better there. Because I’ve always been concerned about, if not obsessed, about the fact that even in a country that’s got three and a half per cent national unemployment there are still pockets of our country and our communities, including the ones that I grew up in and represent now, where we just haven’t been able to attach enough people to the opportunities that a growing, job‑creating economy can provide. There has been a mismatch for too long. And the place‑based initiatives which you referenced in your question are an important part of that. I’ve seen how they can work in local communities like mine, and I want to expand them and lean more heavily on them. But you’re right – if your question is that we need to do more beyond that, yes we do, yes we are, yes we will. Our existing participation agenda – whether it’s cheaper early childhood education or some of the other steps that we’re taking to make training more accessible to more people – that’s part of that story. But you’ll see more of that in the white paper.
TINGLE:
David Crowe.
DAVID CROWE:
Thanks, Laura. David Crowe from the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age of Melbourne. Thanks for your speech, Treasurer. Clearly there’s a major debate this morning about the impact of this Budget on inflation. Different views from different economists on that. You’ve pointed to the Budget papers and the energy package putting that downward pressure on inflation. However, at the same time in the Budget papers total payments from the Commonwealth sector will go up by 3.7 per cent in real terms over the coming financial year. So that’s still a significant amount of money going into the economy when there are these concerns about inflation and the impact on interest rates. When the Reserve Bank meets next month, if they put up interest rates, will that be your fault?
CHALMERS:
Well, first of all, obviously I don’t pre‑empt the decisions taken independently by the Reserve Bank Board. I never have, never will. Don’t intend to do that today. But, really, the defining influence on our decisions around the cost‑of‑living package, our decisions around the growth package and the historic restraint that we’ve shown in spending has been this inflation challenge. And we are supremely confident that the Budget that we handed down last night will take some of these cost‑of‑living pressures off without adding to inflation. And, really, the main conversation that hung over all of the decisions that the Expenditure Review Committee and the Cabinet took was a version of this question. And the very clear advice, as I ran through in the prepared remarks a moment ago, is that a fact that such a big proportion of that spending in ’23 ‑’24 is legacy issues that we had to clean up, the fact that the cost of living package only adds 0.1 per cent of GDP in that period, the fact that our energy plan – the combination of the price caps and the bill relief – takes three‑quarters of a click off inflation next year, all of these things I think are important demonstrations for why so many of the bank economists in particular have come out today and said at worst the impact on the economy is neutral, and many of them have said better than that. There won’t be unanimity about that – you can always find – if you look hard enough you can always find a view at either end of the spectrum. But we’re really confident that we’ve got the balance right. We’re giving people a bit of help without making the cost of living challenge worse.
TINGLE:
Patrick Commins.
PATRICK COMMINS:
Patrick Commins from The Australian newspaper. A major component of the self‑healing budget over the coming decade is the big changes to the forecasts around cost in the NDIS. It’s gone from almost 14 per cent a year to a bit over 10 per cent. How can you justify booking such a major saving on the NDIS over the coming decade without actually having taken the policy decisions to justify that saving?
CHALMERS:
Yeah, thanks, Patrick. Two things in response to your question: first of all, this notion of self‑healing. When governments get an upward revision to revenue, as governments of both political persuasions have at times over the 20 or so years I’ve been knocking around here, they’ve got a choice to make – how much of that they spend and how much of that they bank. That is a really key decision and it’s a hard decision. So it doesn’t feel self‑healing when you’re sitting around the Expenditure Review Committee table and colleagues have got terrific ideas and you’ve got to work out what you can afford to spend because your overwhelming priority is spending restraint to fix the budget to avoid these dead interest payments as much as you can. And so I reject the idea that there is something automatic about the restraint that we showed in the Budget. There are hard decisions associated with not spending much at all of the upward revision in revenue.
When it comes to the NDIS, if you think about it, of the five fastest growing areas of the Budget – which those of you who joined me in the Blue Room from time to time are probably sick of hearing about – the two fastest are the NDIS and interest costs. And that’s where we’ve made the most progress in the Budget. Avoiding hundreds of billions of dollars gets the interest bill down, as you know. But also the work – and I pay tribute to Bill Shorten who is here and the Prime Minister and the National Cabinet, what we’re trying to do here is there’s been progress in the near term. The increased costs on the NDIS would have been something like $17 billion. Instead the decisions taken meant that we took about $15 billion of that off the table at the same time as we work with the states and territories and the NDIA and the sector and others to moderate some of the growth in costs in the scheme.
And our objective here – our primary objective – is not actually budget repair when it comes to the NDIS. Our primary objective, as I’ve heard Bill say eloquently time and time again, is to make sure that the money is going to the people that the system was designed to serve. That’s our first priority. And in order to ensure that we’ve got to make sure that the increasing costs are sustainable and that we get a handle on these costs. So that’s our motivation.
We also want to get handle on the growth in costs. That’s what the 8 per cent target is all about, and it’s making a difference in the structural position of the budget, as someone like yourselves would have noticed, in the medium term for us.
TINGLE:
Anna Henderson.
ANNA HENDERSON:
Thank you. Anna Henderson, SBS World News and NITV. Treasurer, you’re taking a $2 billion gamble according to some scientists on green hydrogen. The US is investing $369 billion on sweeteners for clean energy. What do you say to those that are characterising this as $2 billion for Andrew Forrest and Fortescue, because other international investors will be attracted to the US so there’s more on offer? And how can you characterise your ambition as becoming a clean energy super power when there’s so much money on offer elsewhere?
CHALMERS:
Look, the view that you’ve expressed is not the mainstream view in the investor community that I knock around in and Chris Bowen and others interact with as ministers. The mainstream view is that hydrogen is a big, big chance for Australia. And with the Americans piling in so much cash into grants and subsidies, the Canadians, the Europeans following suit in one way or another, we’ve got to work out what is our slice of the action here, and hydrogen is going to be a big part of that, because of also what it means for green metals and the rest of it.
And so the overwhelming feedback that I get – I convened an Investor Roundtable with a couple of trillion dollars of assets around the table, Chris and Jenny McAllister were there last time that we met – investors see this as a big opportunity. And the Hydrogen Headstart that was announced in the Budget last night – the 2 billion that you referred to, Anna – is a production credit of sorts to try and incentivise an area where we’re going to have massive advantages into the future. Now, if you’d said to me 10 or 15 years ago that $2 billion to contribute to this big opportunity, this big industrial opportunity, was premature, then maybe that would have been the case. But now I’m really confident that this is a good part of the developments in clean energy technology that we should be part of. There will be a competitive process –the bid for this production credit, very competitive process. So it will involve a lot of players, not just the ones that you mentioned.
TINGLE:
Phil Coorey.
PHIL COOREY:
Hi, Treasurer. Phil Coorey from the AFR.
CHALMERS:
Hi Phil.
COOREY:
Hi, mate. In this place last year when you were still Shadow Treasurer I asked you about – in the pre‑election budget speech about the tax to GDP ratio.
CHALMERS:
It’s ringing a bell, yeah.
COOREY:
And you said that you would – you said you wouldn’t adopt the Coalition’s self imposed limit of 23.9 per cent. The Budget papers yesterday show that is going to be reached next financial year and then afterwards, I assume on the back of stage three, will fall back to 29.3.
CHALMERS:
I beg your pardon?
COOREY:
It will fall back in the years afterward to about 29.3 – sorry, it will go under the cap. I know you don’t have a cap, but you said yesterday that with the ongoing deficits beyond this year you’re going to have to make some tough decisions between now and the next election I assume and maybe beyond. Are you mindful of the level of GDP, proportionate GDP, of income tax at all, or is that going to be a secondary concern when it comes to repairing the budget?
CHALMERS:
I am focused on it, but, as you rightly identify in your question, we’ve got structural challenges in the budget that we’ve got to fund. Part of that is alleviating some of the growth in the cost of these programs. Part of it is making sure that we can fund it. That’s really what sits behind the motivations on the PRRT and super and multinational taxes and some of the other compliance measures in the Budget. We’ve got a structural challenge in the budget. We made really good progress on it last night, but we’ve got more work to do.
When it comes to the cap, I was standing right here – I remember it well – and you were standing right there and I was up‑front with people when I said that I thought that that cap had been plucked out of the air – and it had been – and so I wasn’t going to sign up to it. That involved an element of political risk at the time, but I was up‑front about it. And that still remains my view.
But even if you accept the old tax cap of my predecessor, it doesn’t breach it in the life of the forward estimates. We’re still south in the forward estimates of what the Howard Government had tax to GDP. No doubt the Opposition will make a lot out of all of this, but there are modest and meaningful tax changes in the Budget. There is an upgrade to revenue as a consequence of people working more and earning more, and that’s a good thing. And our priorities – we focused on it, but our priorities are largely elsewhere.
TINGLE:
Charles Croucher.
CHARLES CROUCHER:
Hi, Treasurer. Charles Croucher from the Nine Network. John Howard had his battlers. Scott Morrison had quiet Australians. Kevin Rudd had working families. What do you call that group? And, more importantly, given their taxes helped create that surplus last night, when will their household budgets get that bit easier?
CHALMERS:
Well, I don’t really want to carve up Australians into different groups and try and pit them against each other, you know. And, you know, I think when it comes to our priorities in the budget, we made them really clear last night. We want to support people who are doing it especially tough at the same time as we support the legitimate aspirations of middle Australia. And one of the things – you can say a lot of things about our Government, but I think one of the things that I appreciate when it’s said is that we are genuinely trying to govern for the whole place. Sometimes that means giving extra help for people who are doing it toughest, but typically we are trying to be a good, decent, middle‑of‑the‑road government which recognises the legitimate aspirations that people have in middle Australia. And so many of us are from communities which recognise that this idea of aspiration shouldn’t just be limited to some Australians; it should be available to all Australians.
When it comes to the cost‑of‑living pressures that people are confronting, you’ll see in the Budget that the forecast for inflation, that inflation is moderating. We think the peak was around Christmas time. It’s not moderating as fast as we would like, but it is moderating, it is coming off. And the Budget forecasts real wages growth a bit earlier – at the start of next year rather than the middle of next year.
And what we want to do and what we tried to do in a Budget which is otherwise really tight is we’ve tried to provide – we’ve tried to make some room to provide a bit of cost‑of‑living relief, whether it’s in payments, as we’ve been talking about in Laura’s first question, whether it’s tripling the bulk‑billing incentive or out of pocket health costs and help with energy costs. We’re trying to make life a little bit easier for people within the constraints of a really responsible budget. So people are still doing it tough, but they would be doing it even tougher were it not for a Government which is working around the clock to try and support them and take some of the sting out of these pressures.
TINGLE:
Poppy Johnston.
POPPY JOHNSTON:
Thanks, Treasurer. With fairly modest changes to improve housing affordability and boost housing supply in the Budget and the housing fund at risk of defeat in the Senate, have you got a plan B to tackle pressures on the housing market?
CHALMERS:
Well, we’ve got three parts to plan A, Poppy. We’ve got the Housing Australia Future Fund that you referenced, which has to pass the parliament. I mean, the idea that the parliament wants to vote against building more homes in a country where we’ve got incredibly low vacancy rates, incredibly high rents, the idea that the parliament wouldn’t support the building of tens of thousands of homes really to me just beggars belief.
The second part is what you referenced from the Budget last night – some tax breaks for build to‑rent properties. This is something I’ve been really focused on partly because of the Housing Accord that I brought together in the course of the October Budget, but these tax incentives for build‑to‑rent and for depreciation, they will make a difference. We will build more rental properties as a consequence of those policies.
And then thirdly, we recognise that if you lined up the main pressures that are on people –
out of pocket health costs, we talked about with strengthening Medicare; energy costs, we’ve got the bill relief and price caps – the other one is rent. And so I was really proud, frankly, to include in the Budget last night the biggest increase in rent assistance for three decades. And I know that that won’t make the pressures in the rental market disappear, but it will help people get through while we try and build more supply, which is our overwhelming objective when it comes to the housing market.
TINGLE:
Andrew Probyn.
ANDREW PROBYN:
Treasurer, Andrew Probyn, ABC. You referenced before the $15 billion that you hope to save from lowering the growth of the NDIS. In the seven years after that your ambition is for $59 billion in savings. So that is $74 billion all up. You talked about remembering the primary objective of the NDIS, and Bill Shorten only this morning was saying it was designed for those who are severely disabled. Are we to deduce from this the fact that to get these savings the Federal Government intends tightening eligibility for the NDIS?
CHALMERS:
Well, our intention here is to moderate the growth in the cost of the scheme, growing about 14 per cent. It will still be growing quite quickly at 8 per cent, but a little bit little less than what it’s currently growing. I think there’s broad recognition that changes need to be made in the NDIS and that the best way to do that is to work with the sector, to work with the NDIA and to work with others to moderate costs in the scheme.
I think it’s in everybody’s interests to do that because if you go back to that primary objective that you were kind enough to reference, if your overwhelming objective here is to provide for people who are relying on the scheme that Labor designed – and it is – then you’ve got to make sure that it is affordable. And so Bill and the rest of the cabinet will work closely with the NDIA and the sectors and the providers so that this ‑ the cost of this scheme will still grow quite quickly over the life of the next decade, but where we can moderate those cost increases. Because if we can do that we’ll secure the future of the scheme at the same time as we put the Budget on a more sustainable footing.
TINGLE:
Mark Riley.
MARK RILEY:
Mark Riley, the Seven Network, Treasurer. The bulk‑billing incentives, people are finding it difficult to find a bulk‑billing doctor today. The cost of living crunch is today. This doesn’t start until November 1. Why do they have to wait six months? I imagine you’ve modelled this $3.5 billion policy. What impact is it going to have on bulk‑billing rates, because the expectation out there today is that parents are going to be able to take their kid to a GP and be bulk billed. Is that going to happen 100 per cent of the time, 80 per cent of the time, half the time?
CHALMERS:
Well, it will happen more frequently as a consequence of our policies. Tripling the bulk‑billing incentive, particularly for kids and people with concession cards, is the biggest investment that I can remember in strengthening Medicare. The problem is as you described it – you know, too many people can’t find a bulk‑billing doctor, and it forces them to either not go to the doctor, even when they might need to. It forces them to make trade‑offs that we don’t want them to make in their household budget. And so the three and a half billion dollars, which is part of more than $5 billion in the strengthening Medicare package which was in the budget devised by Mark Butler and other colleagues, is our attempt to try and shift the needle on bulk‑billing rates. And the reality of all of that is that more doctors will bulk bill as a consequence of us paying them three times what they were getting before to do it. And the other important detail is that the incentives in the bush are bigger than the incentives in the cities – still substantial in both cases now that we’ve tripled it – but this is also an investment in the bush make sure that people can find a bulk‑billing doctor there.
RILEY:
And the six‑month wait?
CHALMERS:
With all of these programs we do what we can to implement them in a methodical way as soon as we can. And often it requires a system change or requires other changes. But November in the grand scheme of things is not an especially long time to wait for a multi‑billion dollar game changing investment in Medicare.
TINGLE:
Clare Armstrong.
CLARE ARMSTRONG:
Thanks, Treasurer. Clare Armstrong from the tabloids. You’re going to appreciate this question. Even with power bill rebates and the impact of the reduction on bills from the gas and coal interventions, Australians are still paying more for their power bills now than they were two years ago. You often talk about being willing to have difficult conversations with Australians. Does that mean you’re going to be up‑front with them and say that that $275 saving in 2025 based on their 2021 bill level isn’t coming?
CHALMERS:
Well, first of all, we’re going to provide more than 5 million Australians with a bigger saving than that – up to $500 on their winter electricity bill. And I don’t think that’s nothing. That’s an important consideration. Secondly, the $275 that you referred to was a forecast for the modelling that was done before the Ukraine War. And there have been developments in the energy market since. But it remains the case that the cheapest form of new power is renewable and increasingly reliable energy. And so that’s why that’s a big part of our agenda.
Now, when it comes to power prices – the beginning of your question – you know, one of the things that I was really hoping people would notice in the Budget that we handed down last night is that that forecast for electricity prices, which was going to be a 36 per cent increase in electricity prices in the coming year, is now expected to be 10 per cent. And when you take into consideration the rounding, it’s about a 25 per centage point improvement in the energy forecast for that year, and that is a consequence of the decisive action that we took when we brought the parliament back and imposed the caps and said that we’d provide the relief. And that to me shows that the pressures that are on people from high electricity prices, we have been able to take some of the sting out of those high electricity prices, and we’re proud of that.
TINGLE:
Katina Curtis.
KATINA CURTIS:
Thanks, Treasurer. Katina Curtis from the West Australian. The difference in the deficit in 23‑24 and 24‑25 is about just over $21 billion. As I understand it, that’s almost the exact cost of the stage three tax cuts.
CHALMERS:
I see where you’re going here, Katina.
CURTIS:
Are you borrowing to fund that tax cut?
CHALMERS:
Well, before last night’s Budget, last year we were borrowing for all of the – you know, for all of these new commitments that were coming into the Budget. And what Katy and I and the team have been able to do is to put the Budget on a much more sustainable footing. I was asked yesterday how much the stage three tax cuts cost over the life of the forward estimates, and I answered that question honestly. But the other honest part of the answer to your question is, you know, these weren’t – these weren’t a feature of our budget deliberations. They come in in more than a year’s time. They were legislated some time ago. They don’t get a specific reference in the Budget because they’re an old decision already legislated.
And I understand the interest in them, but our position on them hasn’t changed. The fiscal position is clear. The fiscal position is much, much, much better as a consequence of the decisions underpinning last night’s Budget than they were in the October Budget, and especially the March Budget before that. But we’ve still got structural challenges in the budget and we’re very attentive to them.
TINGLE:
Andrew Clennell.
ANDREW CLENNELL:
Treasurer, Andrew Clennell, Sky News.
CHALMERS:
You’ve got a big grin on your face, Andrew. That troubles me.
CLENNELL:
With unemployment at three and a half per cent, it seems in the vast majority of cases if you want a job you can get a job. So why do people on the dole get more money from the government out of this budget but not a household on more than 160K a year who, for example, don’t get the electricity bill relief? What do you say to those working full time about why those on the dole get relief but they don’t? And if the answer is stage three tax cuts next year, why were you seemingly too ashamed of them to mention them in the Budget?
CHALMERS:
Well, they wasn’t mentioned in the Budget for the reason that I just gave to – in response to Katina’s question. That’s the first point. The second point is that a key feature and a welcome feature of our social security system is that more help goes to the people of the most modest means. That’s a feature of social security.
The third part of an answer to your question – and I’ve got it – in fairness, I’ve got it from a number of you around the room last night and this morning as well – because we’ve demonstrated, as Laura said, frankly, in her piece last night, that we haven’t had to choose between budget responsibility and compassion for the most vulnerable people, you know, that we’ve shown responsibility and compassion and empathy, because we’ve done that and prioritised the people doing it toughest I understand that people will ask what’s in the Budget for middle Australia. And I’m so proud to get that question and pleased to get that question because a key part of getting the wages moving again in this country after a decade of stagnation is about middle Australia.
So much of what we’re doing in strengthening Medicare is about middle Australia. You know, so much of what we’re doing in making medicines cheaper, so much of the benefit from the price caps in the energy market are flowing through to middle Australia. The cheaper early childhood education, which some of you have given us stick for being too generous to middle Australia, that will be a game changer for working parents when that comes in on the 1st of July. There is so much that we’re doing for middle Australia in this Budget.
But when it comes to social security, I think there are good reasons why we prioritise the most vulnerable. And I’m not associating you necessarily with a piece of madness that I heard from Angus Taylor yesterday, but we’re in the same general area when he told David Lipson that what worried him about our changes in social security was that it meant that the broader Australian community would be funding help for the most vulnerable. Well, that is the whole basis of social security. I mean, that is the whole basis of social security. And I think that our country is better, frankly, than the kind of downward envy that we hear about from time to time from people like Angus Taylor. I think the broader Australian community, they want a bit of help. They’re getting help from us in the Budget, but I think that there is a generosity inherent in the Australian character that says if you are doing it the toughest, you need the most help.
TINGLE:
Stela Todorovic.
STELA TODOROVIC:
Stela from Network Ten. Thanks for your speech, Treasurer. Some economists are saying this surplus is a classic smoke and mirrors exercise. Those are their words. Why are they wrong? And most people in this room would be getting a pretty healthy stage three tax cut next year unless the Budget repeals them. Just to clarify: are you guaranteeing that you won’t be doing that? And if you do, do you still expect them to all show up?
CHALMERS:
Well, as you know, Stela, the second part of your question: we haven’t changed our view about those stage three tax cuts. And in Katina’s question and I think in one other question I think I’ve addressed that at some length.
And can you remind me of the first part of your question?
TODOROVIC:
Some economists are saying that this is a classic smoke and mirrors exercise.
CHALMERS:
Yes, so the surplus what we’re forecasting for ’22‑’23 is a small surplus. We’ll know for sure in September when we get the final Budget outcome. I think there are really good reasons to be cautious about that. You haven’t seen me wandering around here with the Back in Black mugs. I think that we need to be – there are good reasons to be cautious about it.
But what is already clear, what we don’t need to wait until September to understand, is that without the substantial fiscal restraint that we showed, the discipline we imposed on the Budget, the broader constraints that come from managing the Budget and the economy more responsibly than our predecessors, without all of that effort, we wouldn’t be within cooee of a surplus in 22‑23. And people will rightly raise with me the upward revisions to revenue that come from people working more and earning more, which is a good thing, from higher prices for our exports – also a good thing. But what really matters is when a government sits around a Cabinet table, as we did, recognising that we’re getting an upward revision in revenue, it matters what you do with that then. And we could spray it around like Costello did. We could spray it around like Frydenberg and Morrison did. And we made a different choice, and we made a choice in the interests of the fiscal sustainability of the Budget. And one of the fruits of that effort, some of the fruits of that effort is the forecast surplus for this year.
TINGLE:
Paul Karp.
PAUL KARP:
Paul Karp from Guardian Australia. Thanks very much for your speech, Treasurer. This morning you said that you support giving back bracket creep to low and middle‑income earners, citing beneficiaries of stage three tax cuts at the lower end earning $45,000. Now, most plans to redesign stage three involve retaining the 37 per cent tax bracket which currently kicks in at $120,000. So my question please: are you as enthusiastic about giving bracket creep back to people earning 120, 130, 140, 150, 160, 170 and $180,000?
CHALMERS:
Well, first of all, the ideas that get put to us, which you reference in your question, Paul, I listen respectfully to those ideas that are put to me about, you know, people who want to recast the stage three tax cuts. Really all I was trying to do this morning was to remind people – because I think sometimes it gets lost – that when you’ve got bracket creep when you can afford to do it, you should look to return some of that bracket creep to people. And that has happened periodically under governments of both political persuasions.
And if your question is, is there more than one way to do that, of course there is. There is more than one way to return bracket creep to people in the tax system. But I think it’s too often lost that the tax cuts kick in at $45,000. There is relief in there for people on lower and middle incomes as well as people on higher incomes. And I think it’s important where we can that we provide relief to those people. Our position on the tax cuts hasn’t changed – they weren’t a focus of the deliberations in this Budget. What we’ve been able to do instead is to support people of modest means in other ways.
TINGLE:
Melissa Coade.
MELISSA COADE:
Hi, Treasurer. Melissa Coade from The Mandarin. During your first year as Treasurer – excuse me – you shared with us your vision of wellbeing and measuring what matters, and you also referenced in your essay, values‑based capitalism. I’m wondering if you can tell us when we might expect to see in a budget resourcing to a framework of that kind, maybe like something similar such as that in Wales or, in the alternative, whether future budgets in them we can expect that proposals will be assessed against a set of national goals?
CHALMERS:
Yes, well, thanks, Melissa, for your question and the opportunity to talk about this. Whether it’s in the essay or more broadly, a number of you have heard me talk about it, if we want to get better economic outcomes in this country we need to think differently about how we measure progress and we need to renovate and revitalise our economic institutions as well. A huge priority for me.
I’d like to leave behind whenever I’m finished in this role a set of more robust institutions and more robust measurements of progress so that people – you know, governments in the future – are judged against some agreed metrics for national progress.
In the Budget – and I wanted to pay tribute to Andrew Leigh who’s over there – the fastest, longest runner in the Parliament – for his work on what began as the evaluator general but has become the policy impact team. And what we were able to do in the Budget because of Andrew’s great work is to make evaluation a more central part of our economic policy levers and considerations.
I’ll release Measuring What Matters, our equivalent of the wellbeing framework, towards the middle of the year. There’ll be an Intergenerational Report this year as well. There’ll be the Employment White Paper. We’ve got to bed down the changes to the RBA. I am looking seriously at renovating the Productivity Commission and all of this work is of the piece.
TINGLE:
Ben Westcott.
BEN WESTCOTT:
Ben Westcott from Bloomberg. Thank you so much for your speech, Treasurer. In the Budget you’ve spoken about how the dangers from a slowing global economy have been offset by the unexpectedly strong reopening of China earlier this year. But the economic indicators of China in the past month have not really been great. We’ve got slowing imports, slowing exports, lower PMI. If China’s economic growth turns out to be softer than we’d hoped or expected, does that endanger the already low GDP growth that we’re seeing in the next financial year? Does it raise the risk of recession?
CHALMERS:
It certainly increases the risk of a more substantial downturn. And when you look at the commentary in the Budget papers – and we try and be careful not to overdo it – but in the global economy the risks are tilted to the downside in the language of the Treasury documents. There are real concerns about the global economy. I knock around with my colleagues and counterparts from the big 20 economies, and I knock around with the IMF and the World Bank and others and there is a lot of concern in the global economy, the combination of a big slow down, maybe a hard landing in the US and what that would mean for us here in Australia. And the hope of the side in the forecasts, as you rightly identify, is a slightly stronger outlook for China, but that’s not without its risks as well.
So what the Budget forecasts is a slowing in growth in our economy as a consequence of the combination of the slowing global economy, the impact of those rate rises in our own economy and the pressure that people are feeling from inflation. The forecasts in the Budget are the central case, but what we try to do there is acknowledge, as you do in your question, that there’s a lot that can go wrong in the global economy – China, US and elsewhere – and that’s why we need to get the Budget in a much, much more sustainable position to try and rebuild some of those buffers against this global turbulence that we’re seeing.
TINGLE:
Treasurer, it’s 25 to 2. I’m conscious you’ve got question time. Are you happy to take –
CHALMERS:
Let’s take Amanda’s, and then we might have to call it a day.
TINGLE:
Okay. Amanda Copp.
AMANDA COPP:
Thank you. It would have been very mean if you’d –
CHALMERS:
It would have been mean.
COPP:
Amanda Copp from the Community Radio Network and National Radio News. Your Government has determined that children need additional support until the age of 14 through the single parent payment. Yet the same thinking isn’t applied in the criminal justice system. The age of criminal responsibility still remains at just 10 years old, one of the lowest in the world. How is this consistent?
CHALMERS:
Well, thanks, Amanda. You know, obviously that’s a really important issue, but I’ve got to be up‑front with you and say that I haven’t spent a lot of the last couple of weeks thinking about that. I know we’ve had discussions at our end. The Attorney‑General, the Minister for First Nations People, we’ve had discussions about this in the past, but it hasn’t been a big focus of my efforts in the last few weeks. There’ll be a government position on that no doubt, and I’d encourage you to speak to the relevant ministers about it.
TINGLE:
Please thank the Treasurer for speaking to us today.
CHALMERS:
Thank you.