Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I was hoping he would ask me that because it gives me the opportunity to remind the House that the three fiscal rules that those opposite took to the election were (1) higher taxes, (2) bigger deficits and (3) more debt. Those were the fiscal rules that those opposite took to the most recent election and so the dishonesty and the hypocrisy at the core of that question is astonishing, even by their low standards. It shows that they have absolutely no idea and absolutely no shame. It wasn't even four months ago that they took a policy for higher taxes, bigger deficits and more debt to the most recent election.

What matters here when it comes to fiscal rules is the outcomes. In office, they failed every single test that they set for themselves. We have fiscal rules to guide us in the budget. Those rules are to improve the budget position, and we have. They are to get debt down as a share of the economy, and we have. They are to bank up with revisions to revenue, and we have. We have fiscal rules in our budget and we have been complying with our fiscal rules.

There are always a range of views about how to update those rules. Those views are welcome. We consider our fiscal rules before every budget. Those rules are important, but what matters more than that are the outcomes. Here's the difference between this side of the House and that side of the House and the reason I am so delighted that the member for Fairfax has asked me this question. On our watch, we have turned big Liberal deficits into substantial Labor surpluses, the first surpluses in almost two decades. We have engineered the biggest positive turnaround in a budget in nominal terms in the history of the Federation. We have banked most of the upward revisions to revenue. We found $100 billion in savings. We have limited real spending growth to 1.7 per cent. We've got debt down by $177 billion. That means $60 billion less debt interest that Australians have to pay. We have debt to GDP down from 45 under them to 37 under us.

Those opposite had fiscal rules which weren't worth the paper they were written on. They said there'd be surpluses. There were only deficits. They said they'd save upgrades. They spent most of them. They said they would reduce payments. Payments went up. They said they would reduce debt. Debt doubled even before COVID, never ever forget. They went to the election with higher taxes, bigger deficits and debt. They haven't changed. They haven't learned a thing. That's why nobody should take them seriously on the budget.

See this speech in context