JIM CHALMERS:
First of all, I wanted to say that our hearts go out to the loved ones and the co‑workers of the miner who has been lost tragically in tragic circumstances in Central Queensland doing important but dangerous work. We know that this will be a really hard time for the workers and families of the Bowen Basin and everyone associated with that really important industry. And so our hearts go out to them.
I’m here this morning with Corrinne McMillan, the absolutely sensational state Member for Mansfield, and also with Councillor Ryan Murphy. We’re having a sticky at what is going to be an absolutely incredible piece of public infrastructure. This is what happens when governments work together to fund the public transport and the local infrastructure that local people need and deserve. Whether it’s this depot here or the new bus station down there all of the money that’s being contributed by the council, by the state government down the road here and by the federal government means that we are working closely together to build the public transport that we know is such an important part of this part of South East Queensland that Corinne and I are really proud to represent.
So this is a massive site here – a 10 hectare site – for the electric fleet for the Brisbane Metro. It can be a depot and also used for washing and maintenance, but also really importantly and really proudly where these buses can be charged. And we’re really quite delighted that Rochedale has been chosen as the site for that. We’re grateful to the council and for the opportunity to work together to make sure that our part of the world is where these beautiful electric buses will be charged. Whether it’s the slow charger overnight or the fast charger in there, in what looks like a massive aircraft hangar, this is a really exciting piece of infrastructure.
So the Brisbane Metro is about $1.2 billion, about $300 million of that is Commonwealth money. We’re very proud to contribute that. And a key part of the Brisbane Metro project is right here at Rochedale. And that’s why we’re having a look at it today.
I need to cover off a couple of national issues and then I’m happy to take some questions.
First of all, when it comes to the RBA review and the reforms to the Reserve Bank, our reforms are all about modernising and strengthening the Reserve Bank for the future. It’s about making sure that it has the structures, the decision‑making abilities, the people and the culture that we need for the Reserve Bank to continue to make its really important decisions in our economy. It’s such a crucial institution in our national economy and we want to make sure that it is as strong and as modern and as independent as it can be, and that’s what’s guided us when it comes to these Reserve Bank reforms.
Now, we want these changes to endure after changes in governments, and that’s why we’ve taken a really bipartisan approach to the recommendations of the review and the legislation which is before the parliament right now. I’ve decided that the most important thing that we can do here to land these reforms is to make sure that the major parties come together in the spirit of bipartisanship so that we can get cracking on these really important changes.
The Governor of the Reserve Bank supports these changes. The government has proposed these changes in good faith after an independent review, and we need the Coalition to come on board as well. I’ve had, I think, 3 face‑to‑face meetings with the Shadow Treasurer. I’ve arranged 3 briefings with the Treasury department and with the review panel. We’ve exchanged a bunch of letters, as you’ve read about in the media today, and that’s all about making sure that the central bank of this country is above and beyond partisan politics.
We want to make sure that the independent Reserve Bank is above and beyond partisan politics, and that’s what’s guided us at every single stage of trying to land these important reforms. There have been about half a dozen areas where there have been line ball calls or issues raised by the Shadow Treasurer in good faith, and we have accommodated each of those sets of views that have been provided by the Coalition. We’ve done that very deliberately.
I believe we’ve got our differences – myself and Angus Taylor – but in this instance I think he’s got the right instincts and the right intentions. We’ve been engaging and negotiating in good faith, and wherever there’s been a line ball call, wherever there’s been a view put to me by the opposition I’ve tried to accommodate that view. I want these changes to be above and beyond partisan politics. I want them to be bipartisan, and that’s what’s driven me at every stage.
Now, in terms of the remaining couple of issues that we are working through, we’ve made it really clear, for example, that we are prepared to limit the parliament’s override powers to emergency situations, to rare instances. That has come about in the discussions between myself and the opposition.
We’ve also been prepared to accommodate the opposition’s view when it comes to the makeup of the new monetary policy board. Under the arrangements that I’ve proposed to the opposition in the interests of getting a deal here, I have proposed that everyone who’s on the current Reserve Bank board would go on the monetary policy board unless they write to me and indicate a willingness to go on the governance board instead. The Reserve Bank Governor has made clear her views – she would like to see some continuation and experience on both boards, but I’ve been prepared to make that proposal to the opposition in good faith.
So this is all about strengthening and modernising the Reserve Bank in the most bipartisan way that we can do that. As I said, wherever the opposition has come to me with a proposal in good faith, I’ve tried to accommodate that. My goal here is to try to legislate these changes before the end of the year so that they can start at the beginning of next year. It’s dragged on too long, frankly, and we want to get cracking. That’s why I’ve put these proposals in good faith. The ball is now in the Shadow Treasurer’s court. We’ll see if he can carry his colleagues on some of these really important issues. I don’t want to negotiate with him through the media; I’ll negotiate with him directly and engage with him directly, as I have been doing in good faith. But I think it’s time to end this dragging out for too long so we can get cracking from the start of next year.
A couple of other issues more briefly. First of all, later today the Australian Bureau of Statistics will put out the dashboard for the government’s wellbeing framework. This is all about measuring what matters in addition to the usual economic indicators, not instead of them. It’s all about measuring our progress in the areas we care deeply about – health and sustainability and progress and the pressures that people are under.
Now, I want to be really upfront about the data that will be released today. Some of this data is still too old and there’s still too many holes in the data that the ABS has. And I want to be really clear about that. You know, we believe deeply in this wellbeing framework. We want to measure what matters in our economy and in our society, but we recognise that some of the data is still too old. There are still too many holes in the data, and that’s why I’ve provided funding in the most recent Budget to help the Australian Bureau of Statistics fill in some of these holes and make sure that we get more regular data between now and when the first full government update happens in 2026.
So some progress today, but we need some perspective on that. It’s an update to the dashboard. It’s not the full update that you’ll see from the government in 2026, and I’ve provided some funding to make sure that the ABS can fill this in – these holes in the data which are still there.
In addition to that, I just wanted to say a couple of things about the parliamentary week just finished.
The government, the Albanese government, has been focused on the main game and our opponents have been focused on playing political games with national security. We have maintained a focus on the cost of living and responsible economic management. Just in the course of the last week, we started the process of legislating paying super on Paid Parental Leave. We’ve ticked off the world’s largest solar precinct. We’ve strengthened our relations with Indonesia. We’ve made progress on strengthening the National Disability Insurance Scheme. But all throughout we’ve maintained a focus on rolling out cost‑of‑living relief: a tax cut for every taxpayer; energy bill relief for every household with a big contribution from the Queensland state government as well; cheaper medicines; cheaper early childhood education; help with rent; getting wages moving again after a decade of deliberate wage stagnation. This is our focus on the cost of living.
Now, during the week our opponents asked every single question about the Middle East and no questions at all about middle Australia. And I just think that shows how out of whack their priorities are. Cost of living is the biggest issue that we confront. When we do mobile offices in local communities and we engage in these neighbourhoods, the cost of living is the biggest issue people confront. And the Coalition have completely vacated the field when it comes to inflation and the economy more broadly. We know that because they didn’t ask us any questions.
Now, the next election will be about responsible economic management. We’ve turned 2 big Liberal deficits into 2 big Labor surpluses. We’ve found savings in the budget. We funded our priorities and we’ve rolled out substantial and meaningful and responsible cost‑of‑living help. The next election won’t be a spendathon. The next election will be about responsible economic management. It’s what we’ve delivered over the course of the last couple of years. The Reserve Bank Governor says our surpluses are helping in the fight against inflation. You can expect from us to maintain a focus on the cost of living and responsible economic management even as our opponents have vacated the field.
Happy to take some questions.
JOURNALIST:
Just on the reforms, Treasurer, how many RBA board members have indicated to you they’re willing to shift to that governance board?
CHALMERS:
The Reserve Bank Governor has had a number of conversations with members of the Reserve Bank Board. I was obligated earlier in the year to write to the members of the existing board to ask them what their preferences were and then the Reserve Bank Governor had conversations with each of them to see where their thinking was at. The Shadow Treasurer has made it really clear that he would prefer every existing member of the board to go straight on to the monetary policy board. The proposal I’ve put to him is that that would be the case until or unless a member of the current board writes to me and says they’d rather be on governance.
I don’t want to get into the private conversations that the Reserve Bank Governor has with members of her board. I want to be respectful about that. And I’ve been respectful to the Shadow Treasurer, too, in trying to accommodate this view that he has.
JOURNALIST:
So you’ve spoken to them through the head of the board?
CHALMERS:
I’ve written to them earlier in the year, as I was required to do, to tell them about the process around the Reserve Bank reforms and to seek their views on where they would prefer to serve. The Reserve Bank Governor then followed that up with private conversations with each of them. And I don’t really want to go into the nature of those private conversations.
JOURNALIST:
Treasurer, is your offer to allow all existing board members to transfer across to that rate setting board an acknowledgement that the Coalition’s concerns regarding the Labor‑aligned appointments are well‑founded?
CHALMERS:
No, they’re not well‑founded, but I don’t want to get into a slanging match about that. I hope I’ve conveyed to you the respectful way that I’m engaging with the opposition on these questions. They have raised – I think in good faith – probably half a dozen issues where they’ve had a view, either where the review itself said that there’s a line ball call to be made, or where they’ve got a particularly strong view about other elements of it. I’ve tried to accommodate that view.
I think what I’ve demonstrated is a real commitment to the independence of the Reserve Bank. I want the Reserve Bank to be independent and modern and I want it to be strong as an institution into the future, and I want those changes to survive changes to government. And so that’s why I’ve put so much time and effort into being as bipartisan as I can about these issues. They’re really important issues. And as I said before, I think Angus Taylor comes to them in a serious way. He’s put proposals to me and I’ve done my best to accommodate them because I want the outcome to be a set of changes which both of the major parties in the parliament can agree to.
JOURNALIST:
Treasurer, you refer to these, I think you said, rare emergency circumstances where the government may be able to override the RBA’s decisions.
CHALMERS:
Yeah.
JOURNALIST:
Can you give us an example of what those circumstances might be?
CHALMERS:
What we’ve seen around the world is that where these powers exist, these powers are limited. As it stands right now, the parliament can override decisions of the independent Reserve Bank. The Reserve Bank review proposed that we get rid of those powers to enhance the independence of the Reserve Bank. Some of the Coalition members of a parliamentary committee indicated their opposition to that change, and so what we’ve tried to find is a way that accommodates all of these views. And we think the best way to do that is to maintain the override power that the parliament has but to limit it to emergency circumstances and not just differences of opinion. And so we have drafted some amendments that would give effect to that.
JOURNALIST:
Thank you for that, but can you give an example, I guess, of when these situations might come into play?
CHALMERS:
I think you can imagine a situation where there has been some substantial structural or institutional failure or some kind of other emergency around perhaps the personnel of the Reserve Bank and its board or something like that, some total breakdown in the usual kind of decision‑making capacity of the Reserve Bank. But we’re very deliberately not stipulating the exact circumstances. We’re trying to limit the circumstances.
You know, every time that there’s an interest rate decision, for example, the Greens in their usual way will say that the parliament should override the decision. That’s a difference of opinion. What we want to do is to limit this override to genuine emergency circumstances. That’s the proposal we’ve put to the Shadow Treasurer. In fairness to him, he needs to have discussions now with his colleagues, but I’m pretty confident that all of the issues he’s raised about this issue and the other 5 issues that we’ve accommodated in a really serious way in the proposals that we’ve put forward.
JOURNALIST:
Treasurer, are you confident that these reforms will be rolled out before the next election?
CHALMERS:
Well, that’s my objective. I’ve learned not to pocket outcomes from the Senate. Obviously we’re in the hands of the Senate when it comes to all of this. I’ve certainly done everything I can to make it possible for this to be legislated this year and to come in ideally in January next year. That’s my preference and I think the Governor’s preference as well. We missed the first deadline – let’s be upfront about that. It was the 1st of July, and the reason we missed that is because the Greens and the Liberals teamed up in the Senate to send it to a committee which delayed some of our consideration of some of these really important issues. Having missed that first deadline we don’t want it to drag out even longer. So we’re aiming for the start of next year. That means legislating this year, and we’ve done everything we can to land that bipartisan position that would make that possible.
JOURNALIST:
Treasurer, given the concessions you’ve now made to the Coalition on the specialist monetary policy board and on section 11, what effects will your legislation actually have on the way the RBA operates, and how will the central bank be different to what it is now?
CHALMERS:
I think the Reserve Bank will be more transparent. It will be more independent. It will have a specialist monetary policy board and a governance board. And what we want to do when it comes to the appointments to both of those boards is recognise the opportunity that we have in setting up 2 boards to make sure that we’ve got the right people making decisions about interest rates and we’ve got the right people running the Reserve Bank itself. And we intend to make, first‑class appointments to those boards. And so the Reserve Bank will be more modern, it will be stronger, it will be more independent as a consequence of these changes.
Now, here I wanted to really pay tribute to the Reserve Bank Governor who’s embraced these reforms. And some of them don’t require legislation. Some of them are actions being taken by the Reserve Bank itself, including that press conference after interest rates decisions that many of you have welcomed in your line of work. These are good developments. So some of these changes are already underway. They’re already improving the way that the Reserve Bank interacts with the public. But these other changes will further strengthen, modernise the Reserve Bank and make it more independent.
JOURNALIST:
Treasurer, you mentioned that ABS report being released today. Do you think that Australians generally feel safe and financially secure?
CHALMERS:
No, I think people are under really substantial cost‑of‑living pressure. We don’t just acknowledge that, we’re doing something about it: tax cuts for every taxpayer, energy bill relief for every household, cheaper medicines, cheaper early childhood education, help with rent, getting wages moving again. Cost of living is the number one focus of the Albanese Labor government and the Miles Labor government. We are doing everything we responsibly can to take some of the edge off these cost‑of‑living pressures, and that’s our primary focus.
It’s important that we release this data or the ABS releases this data later today, but our primary focus is on the cost‑of‑living pressures that people are confronting right now. It’s a shame, unfortunately, that our opponents in Canberra, they don’t share the same priorities as the 2 governments represented here and the broader Australian community. They are exclusively focused on the Middle East, we are primarily focused on middle Australia.
JOURNALIST:
You mentioned some of the data is old. How do you think the results we’ll see today in the Measuring What Matters report will differ from reality?
CHALMERS:
I’m not really prepared to come at it in that way. I’ve tried to be upfront with you and say that this is a process and it’s an iterative process. I’ve made it really clear in my commitment to Measuring What Matters that we need to improve this over time. And what you’ll see at 11:30 with the ABS data is a lot of good work has happened at their end, but there are still holes in the data, there is still data in some instances which is too old. I wanted to acknowledge that. We’re working towards a major update from the government in 2026. There’s some extra funding flowing to the ABS to fill some of these data gaps, and I wanted to acknowledge that as well.
We’re interested in measuring what matters. We want to measure our progress in our economy as well as progress in our society. That’s what these changes are all about. It will take us a little while to get them right.
JOURNALIST:
Treasurer, on the NDIS, Greens disability spokesman Jordon Steele‑John has made it clear this morning that the minority party will campaign against Labor for cutting support to disabled people through the NDIS. He said that there were 660,000 people NDIS participants and 4.4 million disabled people in Australia who have been betrayed by Labor. How do you respond to that?
CHALMERS:
Well, the Greens don’t have to run anything and they don’t have to pay for anything. Their main job is to issue sternly worded press releases calling for more spending on everything, and we have to make everything add up. And with respect to him, Labor designed the NDIS and we want to make sure that we provide a really high standard of care for all of those Australians who rely on the NDIS. Our primary motivation here has been to deliver a really good standard of care to people who desperately need it in the most sustainable way.
And here I pay tribute to Bill Shorten who has been working around the clock to make sure that we land these really important changes. This is all about putting people front and centre in the NDIS and making sure that the spending on the NDIS continues to grow over time quite quickly, but in a way where all of the spending in the NDIS is about helping people who desperately need our help. We are proud of the NDIS and we are pleased with the changes that have been made during the week.
The Greens see their primary task in life as campaigning in a political way against the Labor Party. We have to run things and we have to pay for things and we have to make things add up. And I don’t think any objective observer would say that Labor isn’t completely committed to the NDIS. Thank you.
JOURNALIST:
I’ve got a quick one –
CHALMERS:
Yeah, sure, mate.
JOURNALIST:
The AFP have arrested 4 people in WA over boat arrivals. Is security good enough?
CHALMERS:
Well, obviously there’s a legal process here that needs to be followed through, but I’ll make this general point: if you want to be engaged in people smuggling, you’ll be punished for it. This is a message to the people smugglers, to the people who trade in human lives, that if you do the wrong thing, you’ll get busted. And I don’t want to pre‑empt in this particular case the legal processes that may be underway now, but we’ve got a really tough stance when it comes to people smuggling. If you do the wrong thing, you’ll be punished for it. That’s as it should be.
Thanks very much.