Source: Australian Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry

Tom Connell:

You mentioned the voters at the kitchen table and that’s what the Budget is really about. Before the last election they were told by Labor power bills would be lowered by $275 by the end of the term.

This time around I’m wondering what you can assure them. So excluding any rebates and even setting the bar much lower, can you assure them that any increase in power prices won’t totally eat up the income tax cut you announced last night?

Jim Chalmers:

Well, I will assure people that we are doing everything we can to put downward pressure on electricity prices, and that takes a number of forms. In the near term extending energy bill relief is about taking some of the sting out of those electricity bills.

That’s an important part of the cost‑of‑living help that was in the Budget last night and we know from the first 2 rounds of energy bill relief that that has been helpful, that has been meaningful, it’s been effective in limiting increases to power bills. In fact, better than that, in the official CPI last year – the year to December 2024 – electricity prices came down about 25 per cent largely but not entirely because of our rebates. And so in the near term, rebates have got an important role to play.

But in the medium term and in the longer term, we are adding more cleaner and cheaper, more reliable sources of energy to the grid and over time that will put downward pressure on prices as well. We know from AEMO and from the experts that one of the reasons why we’ve had this upward pressure is not the new parts of the system, not the cleaner, cheaper, more reliable energy that we’re adding to the system but the legacy parts of the system which are becoming less reliable over time and so we’re doing those 2 things at once.

We know that electricity bills are part of the cost‑of‑living pressure that people have felt over the last 4 or 5 years. There’s good reason for that – international reasons in particular, but we’re doing what we can in the near term and in the longer term simultaneously.

Connell:

First question from the floor – David Speers from ABC.

David Speers:

Thank you Mr President and thank you Treasurer for the address today. I just wanted to go to the migration figures that came out the other day. They showed net overseas migration had come down to 380,000.

Your Budget says next financial year that will fall to 260,000 and then after that down to 225,000 for the next few years beyond that. How will that drop be achieved? And given Peter Dutton is suggesting that he’ll go further, is that possible or even desirable from your point of view?

Chalmers:

Well, first of all, it’s not clear to me what Peter Dutton is saying. He’s made an announcement, walked it back and then denied that he walked it back and so let’s see what he says about that tomorrow night.

More substantially what you’re seeing in those migration numbers which you refer to is we are expecting the continuation of what has been now a very clear trend. We had the post‑COVID spike in migration as those numbers recovered and we have been managing that down over time to the levels that you rightly identify from the Budget last night.

The forecast for net overseas migration in the Budget last night were largely what they were in the mid‑year update. One year had 5000 more, the next year had 5000 less or vice versa, so broadly the status quo. That is a combination of 2 things – it’s part of the normalising of the scheme after we had that big post‑COVID spike and it’s also partly because of the efforts that we have put in to managing those levels.

Now, what I’ve tried to do – I think I’ve done it in this room in front of all of you before but on every occasion yourself, David, and others have asked me – we want to make sure that we manage down net overseas migration and do that in a considered and methodical way which recognises that there are genuine economic needs for migration as well. You won’t solve, for example, the housing shortage without sufficient workers, mostly by training the workers but also there’s a role for migration.

And so we’re managing that down to more normal levels. We’re doing it in a considered and methodical way. There’s a role for migration in our economy, and I think the best way to set migration policy is not to really try and dial up the division like our political opponents try and do.

Connell:

Michelle Grattan from The Conversation.

Michelle Grattan:

Michelle Grattan, The Conversation. Treasurer, you’ve emphasised in your speech a number of times global shocks and disruption that we are seeing, and we may see another round of that disruption next week when President Trump presents his new tariff policy.

Given those rapidly changing circumstances, would you be willing later in the year to have an economic statement, a major economic statement, to take account of new circumstances so that this Budget is not a set‑and‑forget document?

Chalmers:

Well, there are a couple of important points in your question, Michelle – one of them takes the outcome of the election for granted, and you won’t hear me doing that. We’ve got a relatively major event between now and then –

Grattan:

Assuming that.

Chalmers:

– where the people get to decide who governs them in the second half of the year.

But your broader point, I think, is well understood, and your broader point is this: the big story of the budget, the big story of the global economy and our own economy is this dark shadow which is being cast by escalating trade tensions, which are very concerning to us, but also a slow‑down in China, a war in Eastern Europe, the collapsing ceasefire in the Middle East, political uncertainty in other parts of the developed world.

And so all of that does create an element of heightened uncertainty in the global economy and the Budget is really designed to provision for that, to allow for that, to anticipate that and to make sure that we are well prepared and well placed to deal with this economic uncertainty which is coming at us.

And the best insurance policy for Australia are the 2 essential elements of the Budget last night, which is to rebuild incomes and living standards at the household level, make sure that household budgets are more resilient – and we’re making very substantial progress there. The tax cuts are a part of that story.

But, secondly, to make our economy more resilient overall, more competitive but also to make sure it’s more resilient because the big story of the Budget is dealing with those 2 pressures at once – cost of living and global economic uncertainty. And the combination of measures, the calibration of those measures in the Budget are really about responding to that.

You asked me if there’ll be an economic statement later in the year. Again, I don’t take the outcome of the election for granted, but what we have shown is a willingness to be nimble with our economic policy, to play the cards that we’re dealt and try and make sure that Australians are beneficiaries, not victims, of all of that churn and change.

Connell:

Mark Riley from Network Seven.

Mark Riley:

Treasurer, thanks for your address. Today and in your interviews yesterday many times you said that this Budget is about building up Medicare and the election campaign will be about protecting Medicare and there is a lot of money in there for Medicare and bulk billing and urgent care clinics and also the price of medicines.

But I want to ask you about the biggest omission in Medicare since its inception that’s still an omission – and that’s dental care. That can be absolutely life changing for people who cannot afford to go and see a dentist – low‑paid Australians, elderly Australians. It can literally keep them alive. I’m wondering if Labor will at least start a conversation to have some level of care covered by Medicare so Australians can get their teeth fixed?

Chalmers:

Thanks, Mark. I think this is a crucial question – how do we continue to strengthen Medicare to make sure that it’s responsible and it’s affordable and sustainable but also make sure that it’s delivering the kind of care that people need.

And obviously, very good people, including people in the room today I can see around this hall have suggested to us and lobbied for us and advocated for us to do that and the answer to that question is the same answer to the question about a lot of things that we would love to do – we’ve got to make sure that we can afford it and make sure that there’s room for it in the budget.

In this Budget, the big priority is incentivising more bulk billing and women’s health. But that’s not to say that in some future budget under a government of either political persuasion that we might be able to find room for this. I know from my own community that dental health has a direct link to health more broadly in the same way that mental health does and any good government from budget to budget will try and work out if they can do more.

Connell:

Next question, Phil Coorey from the AFR.

Phil Coorey:

Thank you, Tom. Hi Treasurer. Can I just sort of question you on your view about the budget bottom line improving since you were elected. And you often go back to the anchor point which is the Treasury assessment known as PEFO released during the campaign.

So if we go back to the 21–22 campaign where Labor was elected, Treasury probably a little bit spooked by events in Ukraine and COVID forecast a deficit that year of $79.8 billion. The actual deficit that year turned out to only be $31.9 which was 1.4 per cent of GDP. Last night you forecast a deficit for next year of 42 per cent – sorry $42 billion which is 1.5 per cent of GDP. Isn’t the case that from then to now the bottom line is worsening?

Chalmers:

It’s the case that on the 7 years that we’ve been responsible for, there’s been the biggest ever nominal improvement in the budget we’ve ever seen – $207 billion and that’s partly because we turned 2 of those big deficits into 2 surpluses and we shrunk the deficit this year and we’ve shown in all 4 of our Budgets an element of restraint when it comes to real spending growth in banking upward revisions to revenue, in finding $95 billion worth of savings.

Obviously, I read what you wrote the other day about the anchor point that we’ve chosen. I don’t think that there is a different, more rational anchor point to choose than the assessment of the books when we came to office put together by non‑political professional forecasters in the Treasury and in the Finance Department.

And I know that there’s an appetite – I’m not accusing you of this, Phil, but certainly our political opponents – there’s an appetite to try and rewrite that time. They try and pretend away the fact that spending as a share of the economy was up near a third of the economy, we got it down closer to a quarter of the economy – that’s progress.

And I know that all of these questions come from a good place and the good place that all of these questions come from is recognition that Katy and I share and our whole Cabinet, our Expenditure Review Committee, an understanding that even with all of the progress we’ve made cleaning up the mess that we found in the budget, we do acknowledge that there’s more work to do.

In every Budget there’s been savings, in every Budget there’s been an element of restraint. It goes back to Mark’s question – every minister in this room has come to us with more good ideas than we can fund but we’ve tried to be as responsible as we can and as a consequence of that, we’ve made more progress in a single parliamentary term improving the budget than any government ever has.

Connell:

Next question, Clare Armstrong from News Corp.

Clare Armstrong:

Thanks Treasurer for your speech. You’ve often said since becoming Treasurer that you believe Australians understand the need to have tough, adult conversations about the economy. You said yesterday that it was economics, not politics front of mind when you were putting this Budget together.

If those things are the case, why not use the opportunity to go further to address the structural deficit issues in the Budget, take it to an election within weeks and get a mandate? Or is it the case that because of the cost‑of‑living crisis, Australians are just not ready for that adult conversation?

Chalmers:

I think one of the defining characteristics of the way that Katy and Anthony and I have spoken to Australians about the economy over the course of the last 3 years is to err on the side of frankness. And even in the last little bit of my speech today, what I tried to say to people was to say that we understand that even with this progress we’re making in the aggregate numbers, we know that there’s still pressures there and we’re trying to help deal with them.

And where that relates to the specific part of your question about budget repair, in every Budget – 4 of these now and the budget updates – you have to strike the best balance you can between budget repair, helping with the cost of living and investing in the future and that’s what we’ve tried to do, to strike that most effective balance we can.

We get a lot of free advice from budget to budget. There have been people including people in this room who’ve told us we have to burn the budget to the ground and that would be the best economic policy – that would have sent us into recession, we know that now, that’s actually a fact. And so how that relates to the structural position of the budget is we’ve actually made more structural progress in the budget than most people recognise.

I pay tribute here to Bill Shorten who’s left the Parliament but to Amanda Rishworth as well. The progress that we’re making on the NDIS, making sure that we’re providing a standard of care that people need and deserve in a way that is more sustainable. One of the big features of the Budget last night on the spending side was actually that we’re making better progress on the NDIS than we anticipated. That’s a structural fix.

Aged care – and I’m not sure if Anika Wells is here and Mark Butler – but the work that they did on aged care is transformational in terms of the budget position, the structural position. And what we’ve done with interest costs as well.

So those 3 changes are making a big structural difference to the budget. But, again, to your question, Clare and Phil’s before you, we don’t pretend that even with all this progress on budget repair, we don’t pretend that the job is finished. One of the reasons we’re asking Australians respectfully for another term in government is because we know that there’s more work to do.

Connell:

Next question, Andrew Clennell from Sky News.

Andrew Clennell:

It’s another question, not from a good place, Treasurer. I just wanted to read you a couple of quotes and see if you can identify who said this: ‘That deficit of vision has reduced the Budget to $100 billion missed opportunity, a Budget that borrows big and spends big but thinks small, a Budget that delivers generational debt without the generational dividend. A trillion dollars in debt and growing, deficits as far as the eye can see but barely anything else designed to survive beyond the election.’

Then there was this: ‘These guys wouldn’t know the fiscal levers from a selfie stick,’ That’s a good one, ‘always the phoney photo op with these guys, always about them, and you can exist like that in politics and maybe for a period of time you can succeed, and that’s the biggest risk in this Budget. Instead of laying out an economic vision the government focuses on managing political perception.’

Both of those were said by Jim Chalmers in May 2021. You’ve just delivered a Budget which forecasts a decade of deficits, a trillion dollars debt, the next 4 deficits of $179 billion. My question Treasurer is, do you feel like a hypocrite today?

Chalmers:

No, of course not because central to the Budget last night was an economic vision for the long term – building Australia’s future was a key element of the Budget. Building a Future Made in Australia, investing in every single stage of education which will pay intergenerational dividends long after any of us are still here. So the Budget is long on vision.

It’s also long on recognising that people are under pressure and we’ve got responsibilities to them. And when you mention the fiscal position, the fiscal position this year – you mentioned the trillion dollars of debt which we inherited from our predecessors – we are at $940 this year, that’s a lot of debt but it was supposed to be $177 billion higher without our efforts and that’s saving Australians on interest costs.

I appreciate the opportunity that you have given us to remember and reflect on what we inherited when we came to office and we have deliberately and decisively taken a very different approach to our predecessors. Their Budget was weighed down by waste and rorts and missed opportunities and what we’ve done is we’ve invested in the future of this country, building more homes, investing in lifelong learning, strengthening Medicare and these are legacy items that we will leave behind whenever we finish up in this place.

Connell:

If you think back to where you were in 2022 and now with no surpluses for the decade, was that the plan?

Chalmers:

Well, you’ve deliberately ignored there, Tom, 2 surpluses that we delivered. When we came to office, there were no surpluses, there were only deficits and we turned 2 of them into surpluses. I do think – you’d expect me to say this, maybe Katy will agree with me – we do think that is too easily dismissed and too easily diminished.

We wouldn’t have had those 2 surpluses if we’d not taken the responsible approach to banking and saving and spending restraint that we have shown. And so let’s not lightly dismiss those 2 surpluses. They’re hard to get. We haven’t seen back‑to‑back surpluses in this country for almost 2 decades.

So let’s not try and whitewash that from the history, that’s part of our record and we’re proud of it and it’s meant that there’s a structural benefit too because those 2 surpluses and the smaller deficit this year is paying dividends for us in the form of lower interest repayments.

Connell:

David Crowe from the SMH and The Age.

David Crowe:

Thank you, Tom. Thanks Treasurer, for your speech and for the Q&A. On the top up tax cuts, once they’re fully in place, they cost $7.4 billion a year each and every year because it goes to so many workers. But there’s no saving of $7.4 billion a year in that year when they start at that scale, so they’re unfunded. Why is that? Did you think you didn’t need to fund them by finding savings to offset the tax revenue foregone?

Chalmers:

First of all, as we’ve said on a number of occasions, we found $95 billion in savings over the course of our 4 Budgets. I’d say again – and I hope I’m not labouring this point – it’s pretty unusual for there to be billions of savings in a Budget which everybody knows is on the eve of an election. That’s unusual. There weren’t any savings in the March 22 Budget. So we are continuing to find savings.

And as Katy said more eloquently than I do, the best way to think about budget repair is not in any one specific moment in time but the progress that we’ve made over 4 Budgets. And that $207 billion improvement in the budget is about making room for these sorts of things, which are tax cuts, cost‑of‑living relief and investments in Medicare.

Crowe:

But isn’t that double counting because – sure, yes – you’ve made previous savings over this term of parliament, but that doesn’t necessarily give you a new saving to fund a new initiative, and here you’ve lost tax revenue. You’ve foregone the tax revenue without any additional saving to cover that cost.

Chalmers:

The $207 billion improvement in the budget is net of those investments that we’re making in the tax cuts. It’s in addition to the tax cuts that we are providing.

Now, we think it’s a very important, very worthy objective to return bracket creep where you can and do it in the most responsible, cost‑effective, efficient way that you can and that’s what the tax cuts represent.

They are modest in isolation but substantial in combination with the rest of the tax cuts and the rest of the cost‑of‑living help and they come in conjunction with – at the same time as – we’re making this history‑making improvement in the budget more broadly. They are net of that. They are in addition to that.

Connell:

Next question, Anna Henderson from SBS.

Anna Henderson:

Thank you, Treasurer. In terms of what’s been announced so far in the lead up to this election, we’ve seen many billions in spending measures and not so much on the savings side. Will you commit that before the election you’ll reveal any additional savings that Labor would plan to make if returned to government, it won’t be something people find out from a budget document if you’re re‑elected?

Chalmers:

Well, what we’ve made clear last night in our Budget is that’s our economic plan and if there are additional savings to be made, we’ll detail them at the appropriate time.

Henderson:

Before the election?

Chalmers:

Well, if we’ve decided them before the election, we’ll reveal them before the election but let’s not forget, the Budget is not 20‑hours‑old yet. The best sense of what we plan to do in the economy is what’s in the Budget. A couple of billion dollars of savings already. It’s normal in the course of an election campaign for there to be subsequent announcements and subsequent decisions taken and we’ll outline them in the usual way.

Connell:

Next question comes from Matthew Cranston for The Australian.

Chalmers:

Welcome back, Matt.

Matthew Cranston:

Thanks, Treasurer.

Chalmers:

I usually see Matthew in the foyer of the IMF building in Washington DC. It’s nice to have you home.

Cranston:

Thanks for the free cup of coffee. But I think the public are probably a little bit more concerned about how much tax they’re going to be paying when they’re 55. So I went back through some of the budgets, to your first Budget, and added up all the extra tax upgrades, tax revenue upgrades you’ve got from the first Budget to this one. It comes to about $392 billion.

So in that first Budget you also predicted that fiscal ‘26 deficit would be $42 billion. Last night, $42 billion. So that means that over those 4 years you’ve had this extra unexpected $400 billion worth of tax revenue and yet you haven’t been able to reduce that fiscal year deficit.

So I don’t – I mean, the public – the general voting public wouldn’t know those figures. So my question to you is: why are you exploiting the lack of awareness from the voting public about where and how all that extra tax revenue you’ve got is being spent, not saved?

Chalmers:

Okay. Well, there are a few elements to that. Let me pull out the most important ones. What matters when you get these revenue upgrades in the budget – and they were more substantial at the start of our term than they were in the Budget last night – there was quite a small revenue change in the Budget we put out last night – what matters is what you do with those upgrades.

And very, very unusual in historical terms – you want to make comparisons with the past – we’ve banked most of those upward revisions to revenue. Our predecessors used to spend most of them. In fact, we’ve banked, I think, $7 in every $10 over the course of our government and that’s because we recognise that one way we can get the budget in better shape and one way we have been getting the budget in better shape is to bank those upward revisions to revenue. So I think if you are going to quote that big number that you’ve quoted, that the Liberal Party uses as well, you need to recognise –

Cranston:

No, that’s my number.

Chalmers:

Understood, I’m not saying you got it from them, I’m saying it’s similar. You have to recognise that we’ve banked $7 in every $10 of those dollars and that’s because we understand the important role that that plays in budget repair.

Cranston:

All right, but I suppose the question just then is you’ve still got 30 per cent that the public don’t realise that, you know, that’s being spent, not saved.

Chalmers:

In every budget you make a series of decisions about revenue and about investments in the future and cost‑of‑living help and, in this case, tax cuts. It is historically unusual for a government to bank 70 per cent almost of these upward revisions to revenue.

As I said, our predecessors – not just our immediate predecessors but the Howard government as well – they used to spend almost all of it. We’ve saved the vast majority of it – almost three‑quarters of it.

Connell:

Next question, Andrew Probyn from the Nine Network.

Andrew Probyn:

Treasurer, I want to ask you about tobacco excise. Over the past 5 years, Treasury thought that you’d raise something like $77 billion, and it’s now under $50 billion. Somewhat of a public policy disaster given that smoking hasn’t really shifted in rates in recent years.

And you’ve got a bit of a triple disaster in a bottom line falling out of tobacco, which was once the fourth biggest revenue source, health outcomes not shifting and the creation of a multibillion‑dollar industry for organised crime. So my question is: what consideration has been given to reducing tobacco excise to attack the financial incentive that’s so attractive to crime gangs?

Chalmers:

We’d rather give tax relief to every Australian taxpayer than to provide tax relief for smoking. We don’t think that’s the best way to go about this problem that we acknowledge. There is a very big, very substantial problem in the budget when it comes to tobacco excise. I’ve been very upfront about that.

There are 2 ways that tobacco excise comes down – one’s a very good way, and one’s a very bad way. The very good way is more people give up the darts, we want that. The bad way is that more people avoid the tax, and we are seeing in organised crime and in other ways there has been an increase in that kind of often violent tax evasion.

And so what we’ve done in the Budget, recognising and acknowledging that problem, there is a very serious problem in the budget when it comes to that revenue line, is we invested another $157 million in enforcement and compliance. We think that’s a better way to collect more revenue in recognition and in acknowledgement of that problem. There was also $188 million in resourcing for compliance and enforcement, I think, in January of 2024.

So we know we’ve got a problem there. We know we’ve got to do something about it. We’re not convinced that by cutting taxes for smoking that we’ll get the objective that we want. We think the better way is to invest in enforcement, and that’s what we’re doing.

Connell:

Laura Tingle from the ABC.

Laura Tingle:

Thanks, Tom. Treasurer, you said one of the priorities in the Budget is about lifting the productive capacity of the economy and you’ve also talked about the importance of small business. That’s something that the Coalition is clearly focused on.

I just wondered if you could clarify for us the status of the instant asset write‑off. As I understand it, if legislation that’s already before the parliament isn’t extended by the time we leave here this week, it will – the write‑off level will revert to $10,00 for smaller businesses. What’s your plan for that, and what’s your plan for the future with the instant asset write‑off?

Chalmers:

Thanks, Laura. The extension for the instant asset write‑off that we’ve already budgeted for has been held up in the parliament. I think that’s, frankly, shameful that that’s been held up. It’s been held hostage to some Senate shenanigans.

And so we want to see that passed. We’re talking with the crossbench about that right now, and I don’t want to drop them in it, but I’ve had a conversation with a crossbencher this morning about it. We know that it’s an issue and in case we run out of parliamentary runway, we want to see that extended.

That’s been our goal all along. We’ve tried to pass it through the parliament. Katy will have a better sense of the Senate mechanics. She speaks fluent Senate, I don’t. But that’s been held up. So we want to see that passed. And as the Prime Minister indicated earlier today, we’ll have more to say about the future of the instant asset write‑off in addition to that.

But we want to do the right thing by Australia’s small businesses. We think it’s a great thing that something like 25,000 new businesses are being created on average every month in the life of our government, which is a record.

We’re doing what we can to support them – energy bill relief, this instant asset write‑off, supporting the hospitality sector with a tax break, extending the unfair trading practice protections for small business, strengthening the ACCC to level the playing field, what we’re doing in mergers and acquisitions. That’s all about supporting small business, and we’d like to pass the instant asset write‑off as part of that, too.

Connell:

Next question, Ben Westcott from Bloomberg.

Ben Westcott:

Thanks, Tom, and thanks for your speech, Treasurer. In just over a week from today it’s Liberation Day in the US when US President Donald Trump will announce his new tariff regime. I just wanted to check, in advance of that – sorry, and just now Donald Trump has said there will be very limited exemptions to the tariffs that are due to come into place.

In advance of that day, have you had any conversations with your counterpart? Has the government had any conversations with the Trump administration to try and secure one of those exemptions? And have you been given any guarantees?

Chalmers:

No is the answer to the last part of your question. We take no outcome or no option for granted. But we are engaging, as you would expect us to. Wherever we can we’re engaging. And we’re speaking up for and standing up for Australia’s interests.

There are 2 kinds of concern associated with these escalating trade tensions for us – the direct impact on our industries and workers and businesses. Obviously, a big concern, we want to make sure that we don’t trade away or give away the sorts of things that we cherish – the PBS is obviously a good example of that. But more broadly as well, these escalating trade tensions are a very substantial concern.

Trade tensions, as you know and as your news organisation knows, risk higher inflation and slower growth at a time when the world is just coming to the good end of these inflationary pressures. And we’ve had a period and we expect a period of slow growth. And so growth has not been thick on the ground, and inflation has been a challenge, and so we don’t want to see these escalating trade tensions make things worse.

We’ll continue to engage where we can. We’ll continue to speak up and stand up for Australia’s interests, and I’m sure that the outcome of President Trump’s deliberations will be known before long.

Connell:

Katina Curtis from The West Australian.

Katina Curtis:

Thanks, Tom. Thanks, Treasurer.

Chalmers:

I don’t know about that front page today, Katina, with me as the Nirvana cover –

Curtis:

What have you got against Nirvana?

Chalmers:

– it was a bit confronting, so.

Curtis:

I think it’s fair to say there’s been an increasing drumbeat of calls for broader tax reform. The tax cuts, top‑up tax cuts haven’t met the mark for most people in terms of that. And probably picking up on your earlier comments about reforms that Clare referenced, do you think that in order to bed down proper big reforms for the Australian economy, we need 4‑year terms in parliament? And would you put that to the people?

Chalmers:

First of all, I’ve always – for as long as I can remember – I’ve thought 4‑year fixed terms would be better than 3‑year variable terms. That sounds like something Anthony and Westpac would say, but I’ve always been a believer in 4‑year fixed terms.

I can’t imagine that we would put that to a referendum ahead of some of the other referenda options that are available to us. And so I don’t want to say where that belongs in the queue. That would be better for long‑term economic decision‑making. I don’t think anybody seriously contests that.

What I would contest, respectfully, Katina, is this idea that 3‑year terms prevents economic reform. I said before that it’s unusual in a pre‑election Budget to have billions of dollars of savings. It’s also unusual in a pre‑election Budget to have proper, genuine, serious economic reform.

And here I shout out my colleague and my mate over here, Andrew Leigh, because we’ve been working on this non‑competes clause for a while now. I salute him and his work, his commitment. I see Danielle over there. We’ve been working with the PC on some of these other economic reforms like occupational licensing in the electrical trades. These are ways that we can keep the reform wheels turning even in the context of 3‑year parliamentary terms.

Connell:

Did you like any of the front pages?

Chalmers:

Next question.

Connell:

Final question – that might get a better answer – Jacob Shteyman AAP.

Jacob Shteyman:

Thanks, Treasurer, for your address. Jacob Shteyman from AAP. Your extra tax cuts in this Budget essentially just give back 2 years’ worth of bracket creep to income earners. As spending increases, income earners will face an increasing large share of the tax burden as a result of bracket creep. Why not just index the tax brackets to save having to do this every 2 years?

Chalmers:

Well, because we’ve got to make the budget add up and most countries in the OECD, they don’t index the tax brackets. I know it’s a suggestion put forward by good people. Good, well‑motivated people say that we should do that. We’re not considering that.

There are good reasons to index parts of our economic armoury – social security and the like. But we’ve found a different, I think better way to return bracket creep now 3 times. We’re cutting taxes for every Australian taxpayer 3 times – last year, next year and the year after. And one of our big motivations there is returning bracket creep, but also doing it in a way where we get the most economic bang for buck.

Now, you can see the Treasury analysis in the Budget papers last night really about the participation impacts in terms of labour hours, in terms of women’s workforce participation. We think we’re going to get a lot of economic bang for buck for those tax cuts, as modest as they are. And so that’s our preferred approach. We know that there are other approaches out there but we’ve got to make it all add up. We’ve got to make it all balance out with all of these other considerations that we have.

Connell:

We’ve got our own budget bottom line at the Press Club. Would you agree to a debate with the Shadow Treasurer; it will be packed out, I’m sure

Chalmers:

I would like to do that. Josh Frydenberg did that in the last election. Josh deserves the credit for agreeing to that. I thought it was a useful opportunity. He enjoyed it, I enjoyed it, and we got a lot out of it. And so I would have thought Angus Taylor could front up to the Press Club and have a debate. I’ve actually written to Angus with all of the requests that we’ve received for debates. I think there’s probably 10 different requests for debates.

I would happily debate him at least weekly during the election campaign. I mean that seriously. I think that would be a good thing. And a lot of you have put forward suggestions about the best forum for that. If there’s a neutral forum, an appropriate forum, we should do it.

I made myself available for Q&A on Monday night to do an economic debate. Unfortunately, he declined that opportunity, and that’s for him to explain why he did that. But I would certainly be very, very happy to fulfil what I think should be an obligation on a Treasurer, to front up to the National Press Club and to do an economic debate. And I hope he agrees to your kind invitation.

Connell:

I’m sure he’s watching. So there we go. We thank you for your time today. Try to contain your excitement as you get another Press Club membership. Ladies and gentlemen, please thank Jim Chalmers.

MIL OSI News –