JIM CHALMERS:
Today I’m really pleased and really proud to be finalising the most significant recommendation of the Reserve Bank review by announcing the composition of the 2 new boards. I wanted to thank all of the members of the current board for their work but also for agreeing to continue to serve on one of the 2 new boards.
What I’m announcing today is the best combination of existing members and new members. These are first‑class, first‑rate people with the right skills and with decades of relevant experience and what we’re announcing today means that we get some continuity on both boards and not just on one of the boards.
I wanted to acknowledge the Governor and I both consulted with members of the existing board. We asked them for their preferences and I’m very grateful to Elana Rubin and Carol Schwartz for going onto the Governance Board.
That does create 2 vacancies on the Monetary Policy Board which will be filled by Marnie Baker and Renée Fry‑McKibbin and it means 4 vacancies on the Governance Board which will be filled by Jennifer Westacott, David Thodey, Danny Gilbert and Swati Dave.
For the sake of completeness, that means that the Monetary Policy Board becomes Michele Bullock as Chair, Andrew Hauser as Deputy Chair, Stephen Kennedy as the Treasury Secretary, Alison Watkins, Carolyn Hewson, Ian Harper, Iain Ross, Renée Fry‑McKibbin and Marnie Baker. And it means that the Governance Board becomes Michele Bullock as the Chair and Carol Schwartz as the Deputy Chair of the Governance Board, Andrew Hauser as Deputy Governor, the Chief Operating Officer Susan Woods and then Elana Rubin, Swati Dave, Danny Gilbert, David Thodey and Jennifer Westacott.
These are high quality, high calibre people and together they represent the best mix of relevant skills and abilities and experience. I’m very proud to say that women will make up the majority of both boards and this continues the very substantial progress that we’ve made when it comes to appointments in the Treasury portfolio. Six of 9 on the Governance Board and 5 of 9 on the Monetary Policy Board.
I wanted to say a few things about what was a very robust and very consultative process which ran over a number of months.
We took up the RBA Review process for the operation of a panel of 3 people. We engaged a recruitment agency. There was an expression of interest process. The panel of 3 comprised Governor Bullock, Secretary Kennedy and a third party, in this case, Martin Parkinson.
I consulted my Cabinet colleagues formally and informally. There was a lot of much broader informal consultation as well throughout the course of the year.
I consulted the Shadow Treasurer in July, 5 months ago and again last week. I wanted to make it clear that the 2 new members of the Monetary Policy Board were the same names that I proposed to the Shadow Treasurer in July and almost all of the Governance Board nominees as well. We asked for suggestions from the opposition and that’s because we took our responsibilities to consult very seriously and you all know, having followed this very closely, just how much effort and work we put in to trying to make this as bipartisan as it could be and that extended to the way that we consulted in a genuine way.
The new boards will begin from the 1st of March so that it’s after the February meeting and not before. It’s also worth pointing out that it is still the case that most of the Monetary Policy Board was first appointed to the existing board by the Coalition.
You’ll also see that I’ve staggered the term lengths to ensure that we can continue to balance the perspectives of existing members and new members and so all of the reappointments don’t come at once. We’ve imposed some order on the end of the terms in February and in August at the end of a Statement on Monetary Policy cycle. Also trying to get it away from budgets and other times that occupy treasurers’ minds, but impose some order on the sequence of these reappointments coming up so that they don’t all come up at once.
I wanted to say a very big thank you to Governor Bullock for all of the work over a really long period of time. I work very closely with Michele Bullock. I’m grateful for her support for the Reserve Bank reforms and the work that has been happening at the Reserve Bank to make sure that we can finalise these reforms. So I acknowledge her and I acknowledge again everyone who has agreed to serve.
I wanted to touch on a couple of other issues before I take your questions.
Katy Gallagher and I will be releasing the mid‑year Budget update on Wednesday. Responsible economic management has been a defining feature of the Albanese Labor government and it will be a defining feature of the mid‑year Budget update as well. It will show that over the first 2 and a half years of this government we have seen the biggest ever positive nominal turnaround in a budget on record. We’ve delivered the first back‑to‑back surpluses in the best part of 2 decades, there is substantially less debt than we inherited and that’s saving the Australian people tens of billions of dollars when it comes to debt interest.
There are also some pressures that we need to accommodate in the mid‑year Budget update. The estimates variations will be very substantial. We’ve been upfront, for example, about the almost $2 billion that we’re very proud to be providing veterans as a consequence of our better and faster processing of their claims and I acknowledge that a number of you have shown an interest in that over time. Other estimates variations around Medicare, early childhood education, natural disasters and the like, but slower growth in China will also have a substantial impact on the budget.
What you’ll see in Wednesday’s figures is that we are downgrading mining exports by more than $100 billion. As a consequence of that, company taxes will be down $8.5 billion in the Budget update. That’s actually the first downgrade in company taxes since 2020.
The global economy is uncertain and that’s weighing on our own economy and it’s weighing on our budget. Some of these pressures on our budget are intensifying. Global volatility is a big part of the story, and you’ll see that in the mid‑year update but despite all of this global economic uncertainty, despite the pressures on our economy from cost of living and from higher interest rates, what we’ve seen over the first 2 and a half years of this government is 2 surpluses and much less debt at the same time as we kept the economy growing, real wages are growing, inflation is falling, a million new jobs created, everyone’s getting a tax cut and help with their energy bills and still those 2 surpluses and a budget which is in substantially better nick than the one that we inherited in May of 2022.
The last 2 things are Tim Pallas’s resignation and then I’ve been asked to say a few things about the situation in Fiji.
I wish Tim Pallas well. I’ve known Tim Pallas for some time now, I consider him a friend, he is a person of great intellect. He’s made an enormous contribution to the state that he loves. He is wonderful company and I’ll be sad to see him go. From time to time we butt heads about issues and that’s fine, that’s to be expected but nobody could doubt his commitment.
Over 10 years and 10 budgets and all of his experience before then, he has been a huge contributor to the state of Victoria. He’s a very fine Victorian and a great Australian. I’ll be sad to see him go, but I can understand that after 10 years and 10 budgets, he’s earned the right to put his feet up. So Tim, I wish you well mate, and all the best for the future.
The last thing I wanted to say was about the situation in Fiji. This is very concerning news out of Fiji with 4 Australians hospitalised over the weekend. We are thinking of the friends and family of the people who are affected, this is no doubt a very distressing time for them. DFAT officials are in contact with those affected Australians and they’re providing consular assistance. I wanted to thank and acknowledge the very fine people of DFAT for the effort that goes in in situations like this.
Fiji police are investigating to determine the cause of the illnesses and we’ll try and keep people updated as that investigation continues.
DFAT’s updated its travel advice for Fiji with some extra information and Australians who are travelling this summer should always check Smartraveller to make sure that they’ve got the most up to date information.
Beyond that, people who are affected by this are entitled to their privacy, so we won’t say more about their particular situation until or unless it’s okay with them.
More broadly, obviously, if Australians are travelling, be very alert to the potential risks in this case around drink spiking and alcohol poisoning. Don’t leave your drinks unattended, pay attention when your drinks are being mixed and get urgent medical help if you suspect that something is wrong.
Thanks for your patience as I ran through all of that. Happy to take some of your questions.
JOURNALIST:
Treasurer, one of the recommendations out of the review of the bank was that bank board members would be giving their own speeches. Is that something you’ve discussed with Governor Bullock and do you expect, say Marnie Baker or Renée Fry‑McKibbin to be leading off the public speaking and communication of the bank over the next 12 months?
CHALMERS:
The sequencing will be up to them and up to the bank, but of course I’ve discussed this on a number of occasions with Governor Bullock.
I think one of the really good developments out of the RBA review is the way that more opportunities have been afforded to the Governor, the Deputy Governor and others to explain to Australians how their thinking is evolving when it comes to monetary policy, but also to the economy more broadly. That’s a really good development and I think most of you, if not all of you, would agree that the press conferences on board decision days are especially informative and useful to people and we want to build on that when it comes to members of the boards, including the new members of the boards.
Michele Bullock has said, I think in a very sensible way that what she would like to do now is, when they meet in March, begin a conversation with the new boards about the best way to go about that, whether it’s the public commentary and speeches from new and existing members or even when it comes to things like if and how they might attribute votes or contributions in the RBA minutes.
That’s now a conversation which is most appropriately had by the new boards when they meet in March and I’ve had the opportunity and will continue to have the opportunity to talk with Michele Bullock about it.
JOURNALIST:
Some were looking for you to appoint an economist to the new rate setting board. Can you tell us why you eschewed that option? I mean, particularly given the RBA review said the existing board members had lacked the relevant expertise to question the decisions or the recommendations made by the RBA executive?
CHALMERS:
What we’ve done here is we’ve made sure that we’ve fulfilled as best we can a good assessment of necessary skills on the boards and appointed an incredibly esteemed and distinguished academic economist in Renée Fry‑McKibbin, one of Australia’s finest economists, and made sure that we’ve also got someone joining the board who has financial sector experience in Marnie Baker.
It’s a really good combination of people. There’ll be more opportunities in the future as vacancies arise to colour in as much of that skills matrix as we can.
I don’t think any objective observer, looking at the 2 new appointments to the Monetary Policy Board or indeed the 4 new appointments to the Governance Board, would consider these people to be anything other than perfectly qualified people with the optimal blend of skills and experience.
JOURNALIST:
There were some sort of commentators, maybe Labor‑friendly aligned commentators who would have perhaps liked –
CHALMERS:
Who are they? I haven’t known, I don’t remember reading them.
JOURNALIST:
Some of them appear in columns in the Fin Review. They would have probably liked an economist who was perhaps more attuned to the labour market. What do you say to people who – I mean you put 2 people in who as you say, are highly qualified, but would not come from that point of the ledger. What do you say to the ACTU – your own support base – that maybe would have wanted a more aggressively pro‑labour market economist on the Monetary Policy Board?
CHALMERS:
First of all, I welcome the fact that there are a range of views about the best people to appoint to these boards.
One of the reasons why I’ve tried to include you and through you, the Australian people, as this RBA review process has evolved is because I think it’s a good thing to shake out ideas, to shake the tree and to see what people think. Inevitably when you do that in the way that I do, you get a whole spectrum of views and that’s a good thing. That’s fine by me.
When it comes to the labour market, one of the reasons we appointed Iain Ross is because he’d been the President of the Fair Work Commission. Probably nobody in Australia better understands the interaction between the labour market, particularly when it comes to wages, and the economy more broadly.
I consider when you look right across the board, not just the new people, but the existing people and the combination of skills and experience and talents, I think we’re pretty well covered on the labour market.
What I wanted to do here was to make sure that we got someone from the finance sector. Marnie Baker, the Governor and I were very clear about that. We were looking for someone there and also somebody with the sorts of experience that Renée Fry‑McKibbin has as well.
I know that some people will think these are great appointments, other people will have a range of views about that. That’s fine with me. I’m really confident we’ve struck the right balance.
JOURNALIST:
Could I ask you about Tim Pallas? He walks out the door leaving a downgraded credit rating. His last Budget update, a week old, has upgraded the debt from 155 to nearly 190 billion. His is the highest taxing state in Australia and the Business Council of Australia says the worst place to do business. Do you think the people of Victoria will be as effusive about him as you are?
CHALMERS:
I’m not going to have a shot at him on the way out the door. I’m focused on my Budget and the Budget update that Katy and I will hand down from this room on Wednesday. I’m not going to give the Victorians free advice. All of us have got pressures on our budget. The pressures on the Victorian budget are well known.
My experience of Tim has been a very dedicated person, very intelligent person, somebody who I’ve enjoyed working with. I see no point in trying to run him down as he exits. After 10 years and 10 budgets, I think he’s earned the right to go and do something else.
JOURNALIST:
Treasurer, Beijing last week announced plans to stoke the slowing economy there with monetary policy and more proactive fiscal policy. To what extent do your calculations around company tax and resource exports take into account Beijing’s plans in that space?
CHALMERS:
The Treasury forecasts obviously take into consideration everything we know about developments in the Chinese economy. This is a particularly slow and soft period in the Chinese economy.
Even with the very welcome announcements made by the administration about efforts to boost growth, we still expect growth in the Chinese economy to be quite weak. That’s played out in our expectations of mining exports and company taxes and the like.
We welcome the steps that have been flagged or announced by the authorities in Beijing, but we don’t pretend that that will automatically solve all of the challenges in the Chinese economy. Some of them are structural, some of them are demographic, some of them will take a little bit longer to play out. But we’ve made it clear we welcome the steps taken and our forecasts take that into consideration.
JOURNALIST:
Just on the RBA board front, I was just curious to know what the thinking was behind putting a review member on the board?
CHALMERS:
We had a great opportunity to appoint one of Australia’s most accomplished economists from the ANU at the same time as somebody who has put as much, if not more, thought into the future of the bank than anyone.
What you’ll see with these appointments, Renée’s appointment certainly, but with all of the new appointments, indeed with all of the existing people on the board, they tick more than one box. Renée Fry‑McKibbin did a wonderful job on the Reserve Bank Review. She is a person who has thought deeply about the Reserve Bank and about monetary policy more broadly, and I’m really very proud and very grateful that she’s accepted this opportunity.
JOURNALIST:
Just when it comes to appointing and reappointing people in the future, will you consult with the Opposition?
CHALMERS:
Yes. What I’ve tried to do right throughout, and sometimes it’s been difficult, is I’ve tried to be as bipartisan as I can about it. And my preference all along was to include the other big governing party.
When that became impossible, when Angus Taylor’s party room had a different view to him, I had to play the cards I was dealt in the Senate.
But I still intend to ensure that the future of the Reserve Bank is beyond politics. I’ve done my best to be as consultative as I can, going all the way back to July. Both of these names that are being appointed to the Monetary Policy Board were first mentioned to the Shadow Treasurer in July. I won’t go into the conversation, but I can say that we provided those names to him and 3 of the 4 names for the Governance Board.
People should expect that type of consultation to continue because the future of the Reserve Bank should be beyond party politics.
JOURNALIST:
How many people actually applied to serve on the Monetary Policy Board? And in regards to your consultation with the opposition back in July, were Marnie Baker and Renée Fry‑McKibbin the only 2 names for the Monetary Policy Board, or are they part of a broader pool of potential names?
CHALMERS:
I don’t have the total number of expressions of interest. That was managed by the recruitment agency and subsequently the panel. I don’t have that number.
But when it comes to the names in July, that was in the advice that was coming to me, which came up in a final way only a week or so ago after the passage of the legislation.
We were aware of the advice as it was evolving, that those were the sorts of names that could come out of the panel process.
What I did then, knowing that, was I mentioned those names to the Shadow Treasurer. I asked him for any suggestions about any other names he would like to be considered and we didn’t get any suggestions on that front. To be fair to him, he’s made his view clear that he would have rather everyone on the existing board went to the Monetary Policy Board. The Governor of the Reserve Bank wanted there to be continuity on both boards and so did I, rather than just on one board.
But those names were part of the panel process in the middle of the year and those names were on the list that came up to me last week.
JOURNALIST:
Just on the drop, the 100 million drop in forecast, what effect is that likely to have on the WA economy? And are you seeing that as the current mining boom has reached its peak and we’re tipping over?
CHALMERS:
I’m not pessimistic about the future of the resources sector. This just reflects the reality of less demand out of China largely and a couple of other less substantial factors.
But broadly, what we’re seeing here, we’ve seen the price for a lot of our resources bounce around over the course of the year. As you know, the iron ore price, for example, has been down, recovered a little bit in more recent times.
But the write down in mining exports that you can expect to see on Wednesday is a reflection not just on prices but also on volumes. Volumes are down largely because the Chinese economy is weaker.
I’m very optimistic about the future of our resources sector. I see it playing an absolutely central role in our economy. The people and industries of WA do so much of the heavy lifting in our national economy. I understand and appreciate that and I’m optimistic about the future of the industries which have made WA so successful in the past and will continue to make WA and Australia successful into the future.
JOURNALIST:
Treasurer, just to forward to Ron’s question, obviously markets have had a pretty mixed reaction to the Chinese stimulus that’s put in place –
CHALMERS:
Yeah.
JOURNALIST:
Have you reached out to your counterparts in China at all for more of a read on what measures they’re considering, if this is the beginning of their motion, particularly given it has such an effect on the Australian economy?
CHALMERS:
We’re monitoring very closely developments in China and, as you know, the announcements about efforts to support growth in the Chinese economy.
It hasn’t just been one announcement. It’s been a series of steps that have been flagged or announced, including in one case when we were in Beijing speaking directly to the Chair of the NDRC, one of my main counterparts about the steps that they’re taking.
We’ve got a wonderful team there, led by Scott Dewar at the embassy, and a big economic team in China. We monitor these things very closely.
The market reaction is partly because markets are seeking more detail and they’re seeking numbers. They know the direction that the Chinese authorities are taking or intend to take. Most people would see them as welcome developments and welcome steps, but seeking more information.
At a time like this, with a lot of global economic uncertainty, not just in China, we do see a bit of volatility in markets.
JOURNALIST:
Obviously, you didn’t get the bipartisan support that you wanted. How today do you reassure mortgage holders, the people who haven’t been following this closely, who are probably going to learn about this for the first time today? How do you explain to them why you’re doing this, why it’s a good thing? And do you think mortgage holders are better off under this new structure?
CHALMERS:
I don’t want to pre‑empt decisions taken by either the existing board or the future boards when they’re set up.
This is about modernising the Reserve Bank, picking up international best practice, and making sure that we equip the Reserve Bank to make the best, most considered decisions into the future. That’s what the whole Reserve Bank review has been about.
I understand and acknowledge that people aren’t necessarily sitting around their kitchen tables thinking about the composition of the Reserve Bank boards. But I also know that people are under substantial cost‑of‑living pressure and that our economy is weaker because of the combination of global economic uncertainty, cost‑of‑living pressures and higher interest rates as well. That’s why I’m focused on my job.
Setting up the RBA for the future is part of my job, but the main focus of my job is getting inflation down, getting wages up, strengthening Medicare, providing cost‑of‑living help.
That’s where the contrast is really with our political opponents. We’re about getting inflation down and wages up, strengthening Medicare. Last time they were in office, they went after Medicare, they went after wages. This nuclear insanity will push power prices up. That’s really the choice that people will make.
But I’m focused on my job. I’m confident that we’ve got the right combination of people to make the best, most considered decisions about monetary policy and the operation of the Reserve Bank into the future.
JOURNALIST:
Just about the returning Bali Five. The Prime Minister keeps insisting that there’s been no quid pro quo. Indonesia is not expecting any favours in return for their return. But just 10 days ago, Indonesia’s Law Minister Yusril Mahendra was talking about the return of any potentially detained illegal Indonesian fishermen. Do you think Indonesia realistically will be expecting favours into the future?
CHALMERS:
Not that I’m aware of. I think this was an act of cooperation and compassion from President Prabowo and I’m very grateful and the government is very grateful to President Prabowo for his cooperation and his commitment to working with Australia in this instance.
These guys made some serious mistakes. They committed serious offences, but they have served the best part of 2 decades in prison in Indonesia and it was time for them to come home.
Some of them have spent most of their life imprisoned in Indonesia. They did the wrong thing. They did the time and now they’re home. I see that as a good thing.
We recognise and we respect Indonesia’s sovereignty and legal processes. Again, we are grateful for the way that the Indonesian President has responded to our ask that they come home.
JOURNALIST:
Compassion for drug smugglers isn’t something that Indonesia has shown much of in the past. So, what’s different here?
CHALMERS:
You’d have to ask them the considerations that they’ve been through at their end. At our end, we respect Indonesian laws, we respect the Indonesian system, we’re grateful to President Prabowo for this act of cooperation and compassion. We don’t deny that these Australians did the wrong thing, but it was time for them to come home and I’m very pleased that they’ve come home.
JOURNALIST:
Just to follow that, would you like to see or will there be fast‑tracked visas granted for any family members of those 5 remaining members of the Bali Nine?
CHALMERS:
I’m not aware of those sorts of considerations. I’ve been focused on other things, as you’d expect.
JOURNALIST:
Treasurer, just on energy, the government’s outlook for the energy grid sees significantly more growth in both energy generation and demand compared to the modelling cited by the Coalition last week. So, my question is, how do you respond to Peter Dutton’s claims that the government’s policies will spur or generate significant overinvestment in the grid?
CHALMERS:
What Peter Dutton and Angus Taylor released last Friday was a joke.
It wasn’t modelling, it was a meltdown. It was a proper nuclear meltdown what we saw from Dutton and Taylor last week.
What these characters are proposing is a recipe for less growth in a smaller economy with less energy at higher prices and no self‑respecting alternative government could possibly sign up to the rubbish that was released last Friday.
We’ve seen this pattern of behaviour from Peter Dutton. He announced he was going to have these Stage Three tax cuts and then he had to walk away from them in a very humiliating fashion.
Then he announced he was going to have a net overseas migration target and he walked away from that in a humiliating fashion.
You can see this going the same way. You know this is a shambles. You’ve identified one of the main reasons why this is a shambles. Their whole policy rests on providing almost half as much energy at higher costs. It’s ridiculous.
If you think about their assumptions around the economy, it means an economy which is $294 billion smaller by 2050 and the lost output between now and then would be about $4 trillion.
They’ve said that it relies on having a narrower, shallower industrial base where more industries go offshore. On what planet is that a good idea?
Going for the most expensive option which will push power prices up the most, which relies on a much smaller economy, which in a best case scenario might provide 4 per cent of our energy needs and which turns Australia’s back on our unique and envied combination of natural advantages and economic opportunities.
It’s one of the maddest things I’ve ever seen what they tried to inflict on us last week.
JOURNALIST:
I finally caught up on the weekend and read George Megalogenis’ Quarterly Essay where he describes –
CHALMERS:
Sounds like a wild weekend!
JOURNALIST:
It really was. He describes the Prime Minister as a progressive leader in waiting. I just wondered, do you have any reflections or regrets about not being bolder in this term of government, particularly around tax reform, negative gearing, that sort of thing.
You started this parliamentary term talking about, wanting to have conversations with Australians about tax reform. Do you think Labor’s done enough to provide a radical enough or different enough alternative ahead of the next election?
CHALMERS:
It’s not a radical government but it’s a reforming government.
I love Mega, but this government’s been plenty bold and he acknowledges that in the piece.
I’ve had the opportunity to talk with him about the piece and then to read the finished product.
He acknowledges, for example, the very big political risk that we took in recasting the tax cuts so that every taxpayer got a tax cut, not just some – that was bold.
We’ve shown boldness when it comes to energy transformation.
We’ve shown boldness when it comes to getting closer and closer to universal early childhood education.
We’ve shown boldness in aged care and the NDIS and economic reform.
We’ve shown boldness when it comes to productivity.
We’ve shown boldness when it comes to budget repair.
We’ve shown boldness when it comes to teaching and training more people to adapt and adopt technology.
This government’s been plenty bold.
We haven’t been a radical government, we’ve been a reforming government in the best traditions of the Labor Party.
People will look back on this period in 10 or 20 years’ time, they’ll look back on this period, particularly when it comes to the energy transformation, and they will say that this is and was a reforming government and that’s how we intend to continue.
JOURNALIST:
Just on China again, it appears that the long‑term outlook for China is that it will be nothing like the kind of infrastructure spends that we’ve seen before, nor the same demand for coal as we switch more to renewables. So, are you concerned that we will never see a return to the sort of revenues that have propped up previous Australian budgets?
CHALMERS:
As I said in relation to Katina’s question next to you, I’m an optimist about the future of Australian resources and the workers and investors and businesses that make up that key industry. I’m very optimistic.
Preferences from our major trading partners will evolve over time, of course they will. Particularly when you think about the stunning transformation in the Chinese economy, not just in the decades to here, but in the decades from here as well. Their population is ageing, they’re making a huge play when it comes to AI and technology and automation and robotics, huge play. We’re already seeing the middle classing of their economy as their emphasis in the economy shifts from industries like construction to more consumer focused industries. We’re seeing a stunning transformation in the Chinese economy. We’ve been a big beneficiary of that and we’ll be a big beneficiary of it into the future as well.
You think about the big transformations that we are dealing with and trying to maximise and manage all of them in one way or another involve a very productive and prosperous relationship with China.
JOURNALIST:
Just on the downward revisions to the budget, what does that mean for your government’s priorities in the next term? Are you going to have to reduce spending, cut back on some of your promises, or will we have to find increases in tax revenue elsewhere?
CHALMERS:
We always try and come up with the best combination of economic policies which reflect the conditions that we confront. That’s been the story of the first 3 budgets, it will be the story of the fourth budget. It’s to weigh up the pressures and the conditions in the economy and in the Budget more specifically and make sure that we can do the best we can for people.
That’s why that combination we’ve been trying to strike throughout – relief, repair and reform – is so important. All of the questions here in one way or another go to that combination of things.
The highest priority in the near term has been cost‑of‑living relief – getting inflation down, wages up, rolling out cost‑of‑living relief. Budget repair, 2 surpluses, $150 billion at least less debt, less interest on that debt, turning around or cleaning up the mess that we inherited from our opponents.
Then the reform story, and we’ve gone to some of those issues here as well. In every budget we take into consideration the pressures as they evolve, and we try and do the best we can to advance our agenda on each of those 3 fronts.
Might leave it at that. Thanks very much.