Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question goes to the Treasurer.

High inflation hurts all Australians—whether you're paying a mortgage, renting, running a business, or just trying to make ends meet.

Treasurer these are not my words. These are the words of the Governor of the Reserve Bank, who has also said that inflation will be 'out of band and above target for six years'. Treasurer when will inflation come down?

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to 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.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Barker and the member for Gippsland are now on warnings due to their efforts during that last answer. There were far too many interjections. I counted at least seven to eight on each, so there'll be no more interjections for the remainder of question time from the member for Barker and the member for Gippsland.

Jess Teesdale (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is for the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government working to boost productivity and modernise Australia's economy, and how does that compare with other approaches?

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

Thanks to the member for Bass for her question but also for the way that she represents her Tasmanian community in our team and in this place. Australia has got lower unemployment and stronger growth than most of the major advanced economies. We've got faster jobs growth and less debt than all of the major advanced economies, and our economy hasn't gone backwards in any quarter under this government like theirs have. But we do know that we've got three big pressing and persistent challenges, and they are an uptick in inflation, decades of underperforming on productivity and also this extreme global uncertainty.

We know that the best way to deliver higher living standards for more people is to lift the speed limit on the economy so it can grow faster with lower inflation. That's why economic reform will be a central feature of the budget in May. Already, we're getting the budget in better shape. We're rolling out tax cuts to help with the cost of living. We're reforming our economy to make it more modern and competitive, and we've taken substantial steps already with the biggest competition policy reforms in 50 years, FIRB reform, payment system reform, abolishing non-compete clauses, federation reform through the Productivity Fund, energy market reforms, reforms to income tax, the PRRT and multinational taxes, and we've abolished nuisance tariffs. Even in the few months since the reform roundtable, we've sped up approvals, paused the construction code, legislated better environmental approvals, passed a better regulation bill to cut red tape, processed hundreds of ideas for better regulation in the finance sector and released a national AI plan, as well as started another round of tariff and FIRB reform. So we've made some progress, but we know that there is more work to do. This is a government which is working together and is focused on inflation, productivity and global uncertainty. And that's what the budget will be about.

Those opposite, at a time when we have these pressing and persistent economic challenges, are in complete and utter shambles. They haven't changed a bit since they came after Medicare and pensions in government and still never delivered a surplus in nine attempts. They haven't learned a thing from an election where they ran on higher income taxes, bigger deficits and more debt to pay for nuclear reactors. As I said a moment ago, two members were more responsible for that election debacle than anyone—the members for Fairfax and Hume. That's why flicking the switch from the member for Farrer to the member for Hume will make their lack of economic credibility worse, not better.

We saw in the election campaign and we've seen in the last few days that the member for Hume is not very good with numbers. We've seen that again this week. They are divided. They are divisive, but we are not distracted. We will maintain a focus on inflation, productivity and global uncertainty, and you'll see that in the budget in May.