Q: I 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 a $100 billion missed opportunity, a Budget that borrows big and spends big but thinks small, a Budget that delivers generational debt without 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 fiscal levers from a selfie stick.” That’s a good one. “Always the phoney photo I like the sound of this ops”

Chalmers: I like the sound of this guy.

Q: “You can exist like that and maybe for a time you can succeed and that’s the biggest risk in this Budget. Instead of laying out an economic vision, the government focused on political reception.” Both of those were from Jim Chalmers in 2021. You’ve delivered a Budget which forecasts a decade of deficits, a trillion dollars in debts and my question, Treasurer, is do you feel like a hypocrite today?”

Chalmers:

No, of course not, because central to last night’s Budget was an economic vision for the long term, building Australia’s future was a key element. 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. The Budget is long on vision. It’s also long on recognising that people are under pressure and we’ve got responsibilities to them. When you mention the fiscal position, the fiscal position this year, you mention $1 trillion of debt which we inherited from predecessors. We’re at 940 this year, a lot of debt but it was supposed to be $177 billion higher without our efforts and that’s saving us on interest costs. I appreciate the opportunity to remember and reflect on what we inherited when we came to office and we have deliberately and decisively taken a different approach to our predecessors. Their Budget was weighed down by waste and rorts and missed opportunities and we’ve invested in the future of this country, building more homes, investing in lifelong learning, strengthening Medicare and these are legacy items we will leave behind whenever we finish up in this place.

The one thing every political party has in common, no matter who leads it, is once it is in government the debt is someone else’s fault. Like clockwork.

This question and the answer to it highlights exactly what we have been saying about budgets for years – that they are a series of choices. Every funding decision is a choice the government is making and it reveals what the government’s priorities are. And what they aren’t. Labor has spent a good number of decades saying it ‘wishes it could do more’. It could. It’s actively choosing not to. Why? Well that’s up to them to explain to voters who want that answer, but it’s not that they can’t do more. They are choosing not to. There is a very big difference there.

Q: Treasurer, today and in interviews yesterday many times you said this is about building up Medicare and the election campaign will be about protecting Medicare and there’s a lot of money for Medicare and bulk billing and urgent care clinics and the price of medicines but I want to ask about the biggest omission in Medicare since its inception that’s still an omission and that’s dental care. It 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

Chalmers:

This is a crucial question. How do we continue to strengthen Medicare to make sure that it’s responsible and 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 and lobbied and advocated for us to do that and the answer to that question is the same as the answer to a lot of things we’d love to do.

We’ve got to make sure that we can afford it and make sure there’s room for it in the budget. In this budget, the priority is incentivising bulk billing and women’s health but that’s not to say that in some future Budget under a government of either persuasion that we might find room from this. I know from my own community that dental health and mental health have a link to broader health. And any good government from Budget to Budget will try and work out if they can do more.

You can say a lot of things about Jim Chalmers, but one thing you can’t accuse him of is not listening to the question he is asked. He listens in a way not many politicians do, and rarely gets caught out because of it.

Q: Treasurer, you’ve emphasised in your speech a number of time global shocks and disruption that we’re 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:

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.

People will 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 and 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 the slowdown in China, a war in Eastern Europe, a collapsing ceasefire in the Middle East, political uncertainty in other parts of the developed world and all of that creates an element of heightened uncertainty in the global economy and the Budget is designed to provision for, that allow for that, anticipate that and to make sure we’re well prepared and well placed to deal with this economic uncertainty and the best insurance policy for Australia is to rebuild incomes and living standards at the household level, make sure that household budgets are more resilient and we’re making substantial progress there.

Tax cuts are part of that story, but secondly to make the economy more competitive and more resilient overall. The big story of the Budget is dealing with those two pressures at once – cost of living and global economic uncertainty – and the combination of those measures and calibration of those measures are about responding to that. You asked if there’ll be an economic statement later in the year. Again, I don’t take the outcome of the election for granted but we’ve shown a willingness to be nimble with our economic policy, to play the cards we’re dealt and trying to ensure that Australians are beneficiaries, not victims, of that churn and change.

Q: I wanted to go to the migration figures that came out the other day showing net overseas migration 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. How will that drop be achieved? Given that Peter Dutton is suggesting he’ll go further, is it possible or even desirable from your point of view?

Jim Chalmers:

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 he walked it back and 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 might Craig, 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 year were broadly what they were in the midyear update. That is a combination of two things. It’s part of the normalising of the scheme after the big post-COVID spike and also partly because of the efforts that we have put into 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 and others, have asked me, you know, we want to make sure that we manage down net overseas migration and do it in a considered and methodical way which recognises that there are genuine economic needs for migration as well. You won’t solve, for example, a housing shortage without sufficient workers, mostly by training them but there’s also a role for migration. We’re managing it down in a considered and methodical way. There’s a role for migration in our economy and the best way to set policy is not to dial up division like our political opponents try and do.

On to the questions.

Jim Chalmers is asked if he can guarantee that the ‘top up’ tax cuts won’t be eaten up by increases in energy bills next year.

Chalmers:

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 the electricity bills. That was an important part of the relief in the Budget last night. We know from the first two rounds that that has been helpful and meaningful. It’s been effective in limiting increases to power bills. Better than that – in the official CPI last year, the year to December 2024, electricity prices came down about 25%, largely, but not entirely, because of our rebates and in the near term, rebates have an important role to play.

In the medium and 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 the experts that one of the reasons we’ve had this upward pressure is not the new parts of the system, not the cleaner, cheaper, more re liable parts of the system, but the legacy parts that are becoming less reliable over time. We’re doing those two things at once.

We know electricity bills are part of the cost-of-living pressure people have felt over the last four or five 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.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers is delivering the traditional after budget press club address. You know what it is the speech, so we will bring you some from the question and answer section to save you from the repetition. It’s been a very long couple of days – find some peace where you can.

It is great to see media expand (in some cases) their list of people they listen to when it comes to lived experience, including poverty. Platforms matter and it is important more people hear directly from people living with the decisions of their governments.

NT Greens MP Kat McNamara has made international headlines for a speech she delivered in the NT parliament about the genocide Israel is carrying out in Gaza.

We see the old ‘wedge politics’ baton is out.

Wedge politics is the term used to describe when political parties, usually the one in government, does something in an attempt to ‘wedge’ their opponent into a corner. So they basically throw something up and then the opponent has to support it or not support it and then everyone goes on about the decision that was made.

In this case, it’s the tax cuts – rushing those through in order to ‘wedge’ the Coalition over tax cuts. Take that a step further and then the whole $17bn spend was just to ‘wedge’ the Coalition on tax cuts, which seems a very expensive way just to own the Libs.

The thing is, all this 4D chess bullsh*t plays out outside of people’s actual lives. The vast majority of Australians do not spend their time following politics this closely. So it only really works on the press gallery and political tragics who then run around about ‘wedge’ politics while ignoring that this is actual policy and decisions that impact people’s lives we are talking about, which has just been created to own an opposing political party. It doesn’t make for good government. And sure, there will be those who just say this is just a bonus outcome – that governments can do good policy and wedge their opponents at the same time. And sure, whatever. Believe what you want.

Ultimately though, ‘wedge politics’ does nothing to improve people’s lives, or the national conversation. Most undecided Australians do not even tune in to the political messaging until very late in the election campaign and those who have made up their mind did so based over a political party’s actions or non-actions.

In terms of how the budget bills are tracking (which includes the tax cuts due to come into effect next year) it’s passed the house, but the Coalition voted against the tax cuts.

We’ll learn about what is happening in tomorrow’s budget in reply, but the Coalition is sticking to Angus Taylor’s we are against these tax cuts, but not tax cuts, but these ones, for reasons (they are calling it a ‘hoax’ which – do they know what that word means? Because these are modest, but actual cuts to the income tax rates – so not a hoax, just not something to brag about) and maybe they’ll do their own tax cuts (hard to see how without massive cuts, but hey – maybe they’ll just pledge to get rid of the federal education department or something.)