Source: Australian Treasurer

Jack McKay:

Treasurer, thank you very much for that address. We’ll now turn to the question and answer segment of today’s event and we’ll turn to the press gallery very soon. But, Treasurer, I just want to ask you. Obviously this Budget is being delivered with an election around the corner. You cited some statistics there in your speech and you’re certainly making the case that the economy is rebounding, but do you really think people feel better off now compared to 3 years ago when the Albanese government came to power?

Jim Chalmers:

First of all, there’s no question that the Australian economy has turned a corner. We see that in all of the ways I ran through in the speech. But what I’ve always done and what I’ve done again today is to acknowledge that a lot of people are still doing it tough. We know that there’s not always a direct correlation between the progress we’re making in the national aggregate data and how people are feeling and faring in the economy. And that’s where our cost‑of‑living help is so important. The cost‑of‑living help that we’re rolling out in all of those different ways. Tax cuts for every taxpayer, energy bill, relief for every household, cheaper early childhood education, cheaper medicines, Fee‑Free TAFE, rent assistance, getting wages moving again, getting inflation down.

All of this is about not just recognising that people are under pressure, but actually doing something about it. And again, that comes to the core of the contest in this election year. Now, both the major parties in the parliament acknowledge that people are under pressure, but only our side of the parliament has been prepared to do anything about it. Our political opponents at every turn tried to prevent people from getting those tax cuts and getting that cost‑of‑living help. And because of that, Australians would be thousands of dollars worse off if Peter Dutton had his way on the cost‑of‑living help and on the tax cuts and on wages. I think, as Angus Taylor rightly pointed out the other day when he said that the best predictor of future performance is past performance, that should send a shiver up the spine of every Australian, because the past performance of the Liberal and National parties under Peter Dutton is to come after Medicare, come after wages and vote against cost‑of‑living help.

McKay:

You talk to voters, though. Do you think they feel better when you speak to them?

Chalmers:

I think I said in response to your first question, Jack, I acknowledge that when the national economic data in aggregate is turning Australia’s way, and it has been in very encouraging, very welcome ways, that doesn’t always immediately translate to how people are feeling or faring in the economy. I think I’ve acknowledged that throughout, certainly today, on multiple occasions. What really matters, once you acknowledge that cost‑of‑living pressure, is to be prepared to do something about it. That’s why our cost‑of‑living help is so important. It’s been meaningful, it’s been substantial, it’s been responsible, and without it, Australians would have been worse off. And that’s what Peter Dutton wanted.

Journalist:

Okay, Treasurer, thank you. We’ll now go to the back of the room and I believe Tim Arvier from Channel Nine has the first question.

Journalist:

Thank you, Jack. And thank you, Treasurer, and thank you for your kind words about the media club earlier. Can I respond by saying here on Table 21, we wish you all the best with delivering the Budget, because as journos, we empathise with people given sudden and unexpected deadlines. My question, though, is about the Olympics. The federal government’s…

Chalmers:

I knew your question was going to be about the Olympics.

Journalist:

How did you guess?

The federal government’s committed $2.5 billion for the Brisbane Live Arena. Will you reconsider that if the Crisafulli government tries to move the location of Brisbane Live Arena? And will you rule out any further funding in the budget or down the line for the Olympics?

Chalmers:

First of all, unless something’s happened this morning, my understanding is we haven’t been asked to reconsider the commitment that we’ve made to the arena. I work really closely with Anika, with Catherine King, with Anthony Chisholm, with the whole Cabinet, the whole ministry, to find billions of dollars to contribute to the Olympics, because we think the Olympics are going to be amazing for this part of Australia and for Australia more broadly. We’re very enthusiastically investing not just the 2 and a half big ones for the arena, but also almost another billion dollars for the small venues, too. And that shows a willingness and an enthusiasm on our part to invest in the Olympics.

I know that there’s a lot of speculation, there’s a lot of conjecture around what the next steps might be. When it comes to the review and the decisions that the state government may or may not make, I see no point really engaging in those kinds of hypotheticals. I see that you report on this very frequently on my TV, and I don’t doubt your sources or your intentions, but what we’ll do is we’ll see what the state government comes out with. Our preference, our intention is to stick to that $3.5 billion that we are providing to the Olympics. And as far as I know, we haven’t been asked to do anything different.

Journalist:

So, that decision about that funding you’ll make that when you see the plans come out, is that correct?

Chalmers:

It strikes me as a hypothetical that we see, obviously, daily reporting from yourself and others about what may or may not be decided by the state government following the review when they release it. What we do is we work closely with state governments right around Australia, of both political persuasions. We know that there’s a big opportunity to make these Olympics amazing. We’re contributing billions of dollars to that end, and we haven’t been asked to consider any different kinds of plans. If and when that happens, we’ll consider it then.

Journalist:

Myself and Sarah Elks here from The Australian have both reported there’s a proposal from the Review Board to move Brisbane live to the GoPrint site at the Gabba. If that happens, will you reconsider your funding?

Chalmers:

I think, as I’ve tried to say, probably half a dozen ways. Now, Tim, I’ve seen your reports. I don’t doubt your professionalism or your journalism or Sarah’s. That would be mad to do that, especially here. But we haven’t been approached about any different plans from the state government. We’ll consider that if and when it happens.

Journalist:

And just very quickly to finish. Have you been approached by the state government for any further funding? Have they asked you for any more money?

Chalmers:

I haven’t.

Journalist:

All right, who’s next?

Journalist:

G’day, Jack. Treasurer, Harry Clark from Sky News.

I’m interested to hear a bit more of a breakdown of that $1.2 billion in federal money to recover from Cyclone Alfred. There were a lot of high winds. There was nowhere near the rain that was forecast. There’s a lot of erosion on the Gold Coast and some trees are shredding and some landed on some buildings. But we didn’t see suburbs underwater. And there were no prevailing reports of crops being flattened, unlike up in North Queensland with that big dump of rain they just had. The Bruce Highway Bridge got washed away. Where’s that $1.2 billion being spent? And how does that figure compare to what you’re putting into the recovery in North Queensland?

Chalmers:

Thanks, Harry. First of all, we’re still assessing the damage, but I can’t wait for another 2 or 3 or 4 weeks or a couple of months before I put it in the budget. I’ve got to put a number in the Budget a week from today. So we make a sensible provision for the recovery and rebuilding communities. It’s a combination of the hardship payments and the allowance in the social security system with the asks that we get from the state governments and local governments to rebuild local infrastructure, you’d be aware you covered it, I suspect most of you did. On those tables up the back, there’s a whole range of different ways that the Commonwealth and the States work together to rebuild communities. Some of it’s automatic, some of it comes from priority lists provided by the states. We’ve made our best estimate that we can at this point to provision responsibly for those sorts of costs.

This isn’t the first time we’ve done it, as your question rightly alludes to the fact that we’ve also had the provision for a number of natural disasters in recent times, including what we saw in North Queensland and Far North Queensland not that long ago. There’s about $13.5 billion now provisioned in the budget over the forward estimates for these kinds of purposes.

If you’ll forgive me one more point about the contrast at the election. You will hear my opposite number and occasionally the Leader of the Opposition sometimes talk about wasteful spending and they use a big number. And the big number that they use includes the money that we have provisioned for natural disasters. They think natural disaster funding, billions of dollars we’re providing in Queensland, NSW and elsewhere is wasteful spending. We take a different view. We will be there for Australians as they rebuild. I understand that your question was based on we didn’t get the worst case scenario, but we still got a lot of substantial damage. We still had people without power for a long time. We’ve had damage to local infrastructure. The damage to our farmers and our producers is still being assessed. So we’ve made a sensible provision because of all of that.

Journalist:

Hello, Treasurer. Sarah Elks from The Australian newspaper.

Chalmers:

You’ve got to quote Tim in your question because he quoted you in his.

Journalist:

I agree with him about sudden and unpredictable deadlines. They’re the bane of every Treasurer and journalist’s existence.

I wanted to ask about the Albanese government’s previous promise about bringing electricity prices down from 2022 levels. Unfortunately, that did not occur. Can you now make a guarantee that power prices for consumers will come down or will at least remain stable in a second term of an Albanese Labor government?

Chalmers:

Well, a couple of things about that, a couple of important points there. And I appreciate your question. First of all, if you look at the inflation numbers for the last year to the end of 2024, what we saw that electricity prices were down a little over 25. Yes, you want to think that that is all the rebate, most of that is the rebate, but they still would have gone down a bit over 1.5 per cent absent the rebate. So in the last year, what we saw was some pretty encouraging outcomes when it came to electricity prices. When it comes to the rebate. I want to shout out Steven and Grace as well for the way that we work together to take some of the edge off electricity bills. We understood that that was a big part of cost‑of‑living pressures. We worked together very effectively in ways that I’m very grateful for, to take some of the edge off those electricity prices.

We know, as I suspect your question is referring to, we’ve had the default market offer released in recent days, and in some parts of Australia, we are expecting some price pressures. As the independent experts said at the time, that is primarily about the unreliability of the legacy parts of the energy network. What we need to do is we need to make sure that we are introducing cheaper, cleaner, more reliable energy into the system over time, because that’s the only way, over the longer term, that you get that downward pressure on prices.

The third point I’d make is that if you want lower electricity prices, the dumbest thing that you would do would be commit to nuclear reactors in 15 or 20 years’ time, because that leaves the old unreliable parts of the system in place for longer. It’s the most expensive form of new energy and it will push up electricity prices as well as introduce a whole bunch of uncertainty. Now, to finish on the point you made about the 2022 levels, which I suspect is why you’ve asked for the microphone back, the number that you’re referring to, which we all used on a number of occasions, was a forecast in 2021 about an outcome in 2025. And I think for a lot of the reasons that I’ve run through in my speech today, but also particular to the energy market, there’s been a lot of uncertainty, a lot of volatility between 2021 and 2025. Our responsibility is to first of all understand and accept electricity price is a big part of the pressure on families, on households, on pensioners, to do what we can in the near term, which we have with our energy rebates, and in the longer term with our cleaner and cheaper, more reliable energy. And in that, I would happily stack up our plan against this nuclear insanity any day.

Journalist:

And just a follow up, well foreshadowed, given that decision from the AER last week or this week, that power prices or the price cap is due to rise. It sounds like you’re not keen to make another guarantee in the way that you did in the past.

Will there be further electricity bill relief for consumers in the Budget next Tuesday? You can just give us a little hint. We won’t tell anybody.

Chalmers:

I think, as I’ve made pretty clear on a number of occasions now, there are hints in the first 3 budgets. For the government’s fourth budget, I’m obviously not going to commit to another round of energy bill rebates here with you in Brisbane a week out from the Budget. But what I can say is that there will be more cost‑of‑living help in the budget. The form of that will be made clear to you over the course of the next week or so, because we understand that people are still under pressure despite this quite remarkable progress that we’re making together in our economy. So there’ll be cost‑of‑living help. It will be meaningful and substantial and it will be responsible, it will be affordable. We can’t do everything that we would like to do because of the fiscal and other constraints that we have. And there’s always a premium on responsibility, but especially now. But there’ll be cost‑of‑living help. The form of that, you’ll have to tune in a week from now.

Journalist:

You won’t guarantee power rebates in the next budget just yet.

Chalmers:

I’m not going to do that today, Jack. And I’ll give you the same answer I just gave Sarah. There’ll be cost‑of‑living help in the budget. The form of that will be made clear to people over the course of the next week.

Journalist:

Would you like the states, you just spoke about that $1,000 rebate earlier, would you like the states to do more heavy lifting on that front and put more rebates in their budget?

Chalmers:

Look, I don’t give the states free advice about the pressures on their budgets or what they might do. I think what I’ve tried to do in couching it in the positive – I’m a positive fellow – is to acknowledge what Steven and Grace did in the former cabinet here in Queensland. I get asked from time to time to have a shot at these guys about the spending in their budget, and I refuse to do that because I think Australians need and deserve help with the cost of living. I think it’s all hands on deck when it comes to that important task. We’ve been prepared to play our part. Steven and the colleagues were prepared to play their part and that’s because we recognise people are under pressure now. There are limits to that. There are fiscal limits to that. We want to make sure that we’re part of the solution when it comes to inflation, not part of the problem. And we’ve demonstrated an ability to do that. I’ll leave the decisions for the state colleagues that they will make around their own cabinet tables.

Journalist:

Treasurer, Chris Burns from the Courier Mail. And this is really on the back of Tim’s questions. I feel we need to go back to the Olympics here. You’ve made your position very clear about the amount of funding the government’s willing to put up. However, obviously we’re up in the air waiting for review findings to come out. Would you consider putting more funding in if it was used for generational infrastructure? And the second part of that question is too is it makes it very hard to give an informed answer to that. Why haven’t you been able to see the GIICA Reviews reports yet?

Chalmers:

What was the last part of your question again?

Journalist:

Let me rephrase that properly, thank you. Why hasn’t the state government briefed you on the findings of a game authority’s final report?

Chalmers:

It’s a question for them. I don’t know the answer to that. Anika might have a deeper insight into that or Catherine, we’ll wait for the government to engage us. We’ve indicated a willingness and enthusiasm to work closely with the former government and the current government to deliver an amazing Olympics. When it comes to the first part of your question, I mean the $3.5 billion that we’ve put on the table, it’s hard to find $3.5 billion. There’s not a lot of spare cash lying around. We found $3.5 billion and we did that because the infrastructure that we want to build is generational. It is legacy infrastructure. We don’t want to see a dollar of that 3 and a half go to anything that doesn’t make a lasting contribution to South East Queensland and the Australian community more broadly. We put a lot of work into that commitment. We didn’t just pull that number out of a hat. We did a heap of work. We discussed it a bunch of times around the table at the Expenditure Review Committee and the Cabinet. Again, Anika and Catherine have done most of the work on this with me playing a supportive role. But that’s because we believe in these investments. We believe there’ll be a generational dividend to them.

Journalist:

Would you like to see that review soon? They’ve been sitting on for a while.

Chalmers:

Ideally, I think we’ve made it really clear, if the state government is contemplating a change in direction, it would be good if they made that clear. We’ve not been approached to change the way that we’re going at it. We’ve put $3.5 billion on the table for good reasons. We’re big believers in the Olympics. We think it’s going to be amazing and we want to get cracking.

Journalist:

Can I just follow on from that, though, you say you didn’t pull that $3.5 billion out of a hat. How then are you going to take into account inflation, construction costs? Given the fact that the Olympics are years away, wouldn’t you then account for more money along the way?

Chalmers:

Yes, that’s a pretty common feature of budgeting for big infrastructure projects. One of the reasons why there’s a lot of pressure on our budgets collectively is because we have seen a blowout in costs. We try to provision for that and allow for that as responsibly as we can, but that’s not unique to Olympics infrastructure. A lot of the projects we’re building, which have long lead times and long build times, we’ve unfortunately seen a blowout in cost. We try to adapt to that. We try to make room for that and provision for that in our budgets. And that’s the case with the Olympics infrastructure, too.

Journalist:

Hi, Treasurer. Joe Hinchliffe from The Guardian. We’re looking at a forecast of a string of deficits as far as the eye can see. With all due respect, how can you prosecute the argument that the Albanese government is a responsible economic manager?

Chalmers:

We delivered the first 2 surpluses in almost 2 decades. Our predecessors promised a surplus in their first year and every year thereafter, and went precisely none for 9. We have helped engineer a $200 billion turnaround in the budget, a $200 billion improvement in the budget in nominal terms. That’s the biggest that has ever happened. Even this year, where we will be printing next week, a deficit, that deficit is very substantially smaller than what we inherited when we came to office. And we’ve been able to do all of that, to make all of that progress in the budget at the same time as we provided this cost‑of‑living help invested in the future, invested in the resilience of our economy and one of the dividends of that. We don’t see those 2 surpluses or the smaller deficits as an end in themselves. We see it as a way to avoid interest costs. We see it as a way to make room for other priorities so that we can fund cost‑of‑living help or natural disaster recovery and the like. But we’ve paid down, I think, more than $170 billion in Liberal debt since we came to office. We’ve only been here not even a full term yet, and that’s saving us tens of billions of dollars in debt interest, which we can invest in strengthening Medicare or providing cost‑of‑living help and the like. I think any objective observer of the progress we’ve made in the budget over the last couple of years would recognise and would acknowledge that the way that we’ve managed the budget over the course of the last couple of years has been very responsible in comparison with our predecessors, but responsible in terms of the overall progress that we’ve been able to make.

Journalist:

Treasurer, on the back of Harry’s question, before just touching on heavy storms up north, obviously Queensland’s faced 2 disasters recently, but in the Townsville region there are still residents in suburbs impacted by the heavy flooding, loss of clothes, furniture, who do not qualify for Commonwealth funding. What would you say to claims by Coalition MPs that there is a double standard between how the government responded to Tropical Cyclone Alfred compared to funding arrangements for the Townsville region? Is this an example or a case of a South East being preferred to the regions?

Chalmers:

No, I don’t believe so. We’ve provided and we are providing very substantial assistance and funding in North Queensland and Far North Queensland. We understand the very serious damage that’s been done up north and we consider the questions around eligibility, the questions around support, the questions about recovery funding and rebuilding communities to be the same whether they happen in Cairns or Townsville or Brisbane or the Gold Coast or in the Northern Rivers in NSW. If there are instances where that support should have been provided and hasn’t, obviously I’m prepared to take that up with the relevant colleagues.

Journalist:

Any more?

Journalist:

Yes, another one here. Mr Treasurer, you’ve spoken about the global picture and talking about tariffs from the US on aluminium and steel and some of the comments you’ve made on them. Given those tariffs, what value does the US‑Australia Free Trade Agreement still hold? And are you preparing and how are you preparing for the prospect of future tariffs, perhaps in agriculture and other sectors?

Chalmers:

First of all, our colleague Don Farrell, the Trade Minister, has been engaging with his counterpart, I think this morning on some of these important questions. Obviously there is more discussion to be had between now and the next deadline and we will make Australia’s case. And a really important part of Australia’s case is the fact that the US enjoys tariff‑free access to our markets because of that Free Trade Agreement. Now, when I engage with my counterpart, when Don does, Penny does, Richard does, the PM does and others – one of the things that we point out is that this has been for a very long time a relationship of mutual economic benefit and the Free Trade Agreement has been part of that. The Americans run a big trade surplus with us. They enjoy tariff free access to our markets. We have a substantial amount of the critical minerals that they’re after. They build the future of their own economy. So we’ve got a compelling story to tell and a good case to make when it comes to these tariffs.

As I’ve said today, the PM said the other day and other colleagues have said in between, a very disappointing decision from the US not to exempt us on steel and aluminium. The wrong decision, wrong‑headed for all of the reasons that we have made clear. And we will continue to engage between now and the next deadline and after that as well, to make sure that we get the best deal that we can for our workers, our businesses, our industries and our economy.

Journalist:

We’ve got time for a couple more. Any more in the back table there, Treasurer?

Journalist:

The former Queensland government knew that their hiked coal royalties regime would most likely have an impact on GST and the GST share that Queensland would get. Should they have had a contingency plan in place for this redistribution that we’ve seen announced this week?

Chalmers:

First of all, everybody knows that royalty collection has an impact on the calculation made independently and at arm’s length by the Commonwealth. That’s not some kind of revelation. That’s how the system works. What happens is the Commonwealth Grants Commission at arm’s length from the federal government, for good reason, independent from the government, undertakes about 12 months’ worth of consultation with the states and territories. They do multiple rounds of that consultation and people know that when other sources of income go up substantially, then that has implications for the formula. I think everybody has known that for some time now.

The current Queensland government were clearly expecting that reduction because they booked a big part of it in their mid‑year update and they said at the time that they thought that there were further downside risks to that. And part of the reason for that is because in the relevant period coal royalties went up, I think $8.8 billion from memory. So, none of that is a surprise. And again, I say the same thing I said yesterday when asked about this. You know, it’s not unusual for state treasurers and state governments to want more money from the Commonwealth or from the GST carve, that is states wanting more money from the Commonwealth is a story as old as federation. I continue to deal with Treasurer Janetzki and his colleagues in a respectful way. I understand they’ve got a view about this. But it’s an independent process at arm’s length and it takes into consideration all of the things it’s been taken into consideration for some time, including royalty payments in areas like coal.

McKay:

We’ve got time for one more question.

Journalist:

We had a few unexpected guests earlier today and they were asking you when will Labor stop approving new coal and gas projects? You want to win a couple of seats from the greens in Brisbane, Griffith and Brisbane. When will Labor stop approving new coal and gas projects?

Chalmers:

Well, I don’t think it’s a good idea to reward that kind of behaviour by asking their questions for them. That’s the first point.

Journalist:

It’s still a relevant policy question. It’s not like those people were the first people to ask you that question.

Chalmers:

I understand. What we have done and what we will continue to do is to make the best decisions that we can for our environment and for our economy, making sure that we balance all of the relevant considerations, environmental considerations, impact on communities, impact on the national economy and what we have shown. And here I tip my lid to Tanya Plibersek and the colleagues. They have been approving heaps of renewable energy projects, I think a record amount of renewable energy projects from memory. What we’re trying to do is to strike the right balance, recognising that we can make ourselves an indispensable part of the global net zero economy at the same time as we leverage some of our traditional strengths. There is a role, for example, for gas in the energy transformation. We’ve been upfront about that as well. We’ll continue to strike the right balance. I know that there’s a range of views at one end and at the other end we are a responsible middle of the road government which takes decisions based on evidence. We approve projects where we can, where they satisfy all of those criteria that I ran through.

Journalist:

Treasurer, I’ll just finish up with this one. Federal Labor has gone backwards in terms of the number of seats it holds in Queensland in the last 2 elections. Do you think federal Labor would do better if it had a leader from Queensland?

Chalmers:

I think that’s a bit embarrassing to put Anika on the spot like that. No, I think we’re going to put our best foot forward in Queensland and one of the reasons for that is because I genuinely believe that Anthony Albanese has that kind of practical pragmatism that Queenslanders appreciate. Queenslanders are practical people. They’re pragmatic, they’re problem solvers, they’re middle of the road, they’re not especially ideological. I think that’s a description that applies equally to the Prime Minister.

Given you’ve given me this opportunity, the Prime Minister really enthusiastically believes in the future of our state. He believes in its contribution to the national economy and the nation more broadly. And one of the ways that he has demonstrated that commitment to us is the way that he has promoted and given positions of influence to Queenslanders in our government. We’ve got 4 front benchers. You mentioned unkindly that our numbers were not exactly thick on the ground here in Queensland. But of the people that have been elected from Queensland into the Albanese government – we’ve got 3 Ministers in the cabinet, we’ve got another Minister, we’ve got the speaker of the House, we’ve got a couple of great backbenchers, we’ve got an envoy in Nita Green. We’re short on numbers, but we’re not short on influence. When the time comes for the election campaign and when people are asking, we’re asking for Queenslanders for their vote, I think that they can rest assured that Queensland has a big say in our government, a big say in our policy agenda, a big say around our cabinet table and in all the decision making forums of our government. That’s because Prime Minister Albanese deeply believes in our state, our people, and its potential.

Journalist:

So, you don’t have aspirations to become leader one day yourself?

Chalmers:

No.

Journalist:

All right. Well, thank you very much, Treasurer, for your time today. That brings us to the conclusion of our lunch. Please join me in thanking the Treasurer.

Chalmers:

Thanks, Jack. Thanks, everyone.

MIL OSI News –