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

There are a couple of things about that question. As for the last part of the question, if you look at the Reserve Bank's forecasts, they have inflation peaking around the middle of this year and then trailing away after that. We'll update our own Treasury forecasts in the usual way in the budget, and that will take into consideration recent developments. On the governor's views about the impacts of inflation, I share them. That's why when we came to office and inflation was higher than six per cent and absolutely roaring on your watch we took steps to make sure that we could get inflation lower than when we came to office.

In recent times, we've seen a tick up, which means that inflation is higher than anyone would like. That's why we're rolling out cost-of-living help that those opposite oppose. That's why we're cutting taxes again. Those opposite said that they would repeal those tax cuts. That's why we delivered surpluses and we're demonstrating spending restraint and banking upward revisions to revenue in ways that would be unrecognisable to those opposite who didn't do any of those things. I'm happy to compare my record against our predecessors any day, whether it's on managing the budget in the most responsible way that we can or on rolling out cost-of-living help.

If those opposite really cared about inflation and the cost of living, they wouldn't have run for the best part of a decade a policy of deliberate wage stagnation in our economy. If they cared about cost-of-living pressures in our economy, they wouldn't have opposed the cost-of-living help. If they cared about cost-of-living pressures, they wouldn't have gone to the last election with a policy to increase income taxes on every single one of the 14 million taxpaying working people in the Australian economy. For that, for this total lack of economic credibility over there, two people are more to blame than any others: the member for Fairfax, who wanted to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars to build nuclear reactors, which would push energy prices up; and, of course, my old mate the member for Hume, who went to the election with a policy for higher income taxes, bigger deficits and more debt.

The reason those opposite are in a real bind is because half of the partyroom supports the member for Hume and the other half have met him. The other half have met him, and they know that when it comes to their lack of economic credibility, the member for Hume is part of the problem, not part of the solution. If they flick the switch this week, as they might, from the member for Farrer to the member for Hume, that will mean that they have less economic credibility, not more.

See this speech in context