Category: MIL-OSI

Source: New South Wales Bureau of Health Information

A 10ha parcel of land at Eyre has been earmarked for new $155.3 million secondary campus to cater for the region’s growing population.

Source: New South Wales Bureau of Health Information

The Northern Park Lands will feature a 70ha sport and recreation area and more than 760ha of open green space.

Source: New South Wales Bureau of Health Information

Tourists are expected to flock to the Outback to enjoy camping under the night sky, four-wheel-driving experiences and exploring fossil fields.

Source: New South Wales Bureau of Health Information

From a day at the football to a meeting with a koala, the organisation spreading happiness to those nearing the end of their life journey.

Source: Australian Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry

I acknowledge the Gadigal of the Eora Nation. I pay my respects to Elders past and present and extend that respect to First Nations people taking part in today’s event.

Fresh out of law school, I had the privilege of working as one of Justice Michael Kirby’s High Court associates. I answered the phone, put thousands of letters in envelopes, made hundreds of cups of Ceylon Orange Pekoe tea and occasionally had the chance to do some legal research (Leigh 2016).

One of the things I learned was that lawyers would be lost without resources like Corones’ Competition Law (Svetiev 2023). Pages dog‑eared and tabbed to death, Corones is a trusted source of how the courts have ruled and how arguments have been won and lost.

Corones texts also stand as a record of reform. Over many editions, it has captured everything from judgments on the original 1974 legislation, to reforms allowing third parties to access infrastructure in the 1990s, to the introduction of criminal cartel sanctions in the 2000s.

And today, a new round of competition reforms takes shape. This includes the new merger regime – the largest shakeup of Australia’s merger settings in half a century. And it includes a revitalised National Competition Policy agenda. These are the 2 areas I want to cover today, with a focus on the microdata underpinning these macro reforms.

Building an innovative economy

Ultimately, competition reform is about improving the long‑term prosperity of the Australian people. This means getting the policy settings right if we want to build a stronger, more resilient and dynamic economy.

Think of the end‑game as more like Lego than Monopoly. In Monopoly, one person gets everything while everyone else watches in frustration. In Lego, all the players get to build something – though in both cases, stepping on a piece can be painful.

As US congressman Jake Auchincloss put it, ‘Everybody, when they think about playing with Legos, has this sense of creativity and empowerment.’ (Klein 2025)

Competitive markets help ensure Australians pay fair prices for goods and services (Leigh 2024a). Without competition, businesses can charge whatever they like – kind of like airport food courts, where a ham and cheese sandwich requires a mortgage.

Competition also promotes choice and freedom.

The challenge is Australia’s competitiveness has been declining since the 2000s, while market concentration has nearly doubled since 2010 (Chalmers and Leigh 2024).

Using microdata to get a better picture

The Australian Government’s establishment of a Competition Taskforce within the Treasury in 2023 reflects the importance we place on competition reform and finding solutions.

In just over a year, the Competition Taskforce has made significant contributions.

This includes using microdata to identify competition issues and develop tailored policy and regulatory responses (Leigh 2024b).

For example, the Competition Taskforce has relied on data to:

• develop a robust evidence base on the prevalence and use of non‑compete clauses in Australian labour contracts to inform policy (Andrews and Jarvis 2023, ABS 2024)
• provide new and powerful insights into how competition can reduce airfares (Majeed, Breunig and Domazet 2024)
• explain patterns and trends in mergers and show how competition has declined in Australia (Competition Taskforce 2024).

Understanding competition

Unit‑level records that track businesses and households over time allow granular analysis of the way policies are influencing the economy.

Using bigger datasets, more refined econometric techniques and most up to date theories, economists have provided new insights on trends in market concentration and the relationship between competition and productivity.

For example, researchers found an increase in market power partly explained Australia’s productivity growth slowdown. Industries with the greatest increase in concentration also had the greatest increases in markups (Hambur 2021).

In this context, high‑growth firms act like Lego builders in the economy – constantly assembling, adapting, and expanding their creations. Rather than dominating like a monopoly, these firms thrive by snapping together innovative ideas, new markets, and fresh talent, driving the majority of turnover and employment growth.

Typically small and young, they grow by more than 20 per cent over a three‑year period, often reshaping the landscape and challenging the older, more rigid structures of established incumbents. Think of them as the startups disrupting the economy – just as streaming services disrupted DVDs, Uber disrupted taxis, and toddlers disrupt your ability to get a full night’s sleep. As vital builders of sales and employment, a decline in high growth firms can lead to a less dynamic, less flexible economy (Majeed et al., 2021).

Concentration hot spots

The Competition Taskforce is working with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to develop a microdata screening tool to identify concentration hot spots. This innovative tool leverages the increasingly detailed geospatial data that the Australian Bureau of Statistics has added to its microdata assets.

The resulting tool will identify regions or segments of the economy that are already very concentrated, where further market consolidation through mergers and acquisitions poses the greatest risk to competition. Concentration hotspots are like a heat map of where Monopoly is being played a little too well, allowing policymakers to find solutions before someone tries to build hotels on every property.

The Taskforce’s use of administrative data to systematically understand economic activity at the local level will be a novel approach to competition policy both in Australia and among our peers. It will complement the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s thorough knowledge of markets developed through its many inquiries and day‑to‑day experience administering the competition laws.

This hot‑spot tool should help the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission administer the new merger system and inform decisions about the sectors requiring mandatory notification. After all, if a Monopoly player already owns Park Place (or Park Lane), it’s best for the other players that they don’t own all the other dark blue properties. When monopolists dominate the board, it can be expensive for everyone else in the economy to move forward.

These examples showcase how increased availability of microdata has transformed the way we can use empirical evidence in the policy decision making process: to better identify issues, understand the problems, and develop effective and targeted solutions.

Microdata gives us the tools and understanding to target policies.

National Competition Policy

Building a more productive, dynamic and resilient economy and giving Australian consumers access to a wider range of higher quality products and services at lower prices from across the country and overseas requires collaboration and trust.

That is why Australian, state and territory governments have been working together to coordinate competition reform efforts under a revitalised National Competition Policy agenda.

Almost 30 years ago, states, territories and the Commonwealth agreed to put competition policy front and centre by agreeing to the National Competition Policy following the Hilmer Report. This was the era of economic reform, as well as grunge music, dial‑up internet, Blockbuster video rentals, Tamagotchis, and arguing over whether Ross and Rachel were really on a break.

The original Hilmer reforms outlined a set of competition principles that transformed our economy in ways we largely take for granted today. These included structural reform of public monopolies, introducing competitive neutrality so that government businesses do not enjoy unfair advantages over their private peers, arrangements for third‑party access to nationally significant infrastructure, and an obligation on all governments to review and reform laws that restrict competition.

These reforms, which focused on removing regulatory barriers in the non‑traded sector, were credited with boosting Australia’s GDP by 2.5 per cent – equivalent to around $5,000 per household per year today. That’s basically the economic equivalent of finding an extra $50 in your jeans – twice a week, every week.

Commonwealth, state and territory treasurers agreed in November to revitalise National Competition Policy to drive growth, improve choice and put downward pressure on prices (Chalmers 2024). Renewing the government’s commitment to put competition policy front and centre once again but tailored for the new challenges and opportunities of the modern economy – we’re now a digital economy, we’re looking for ways to make the transition to net zero at least cost, and we have a growing care and support economy.

We have also updated the original National Competition Principles to drive better outcomes for the community, requiring governments to consider the competition impacts of government decisions and establish protections against poorly managed privatisations, empower consumers and address remaining barriers to the movement of goods, services and workers across the country.

Competition reform isn’t straightforward. If it was easy, past governments would have done it already. Competition reform can be like assembling flat‑pack furniture – you know it’ll be worth it in the end, but along the way, there’s a lot of frustration and some pieces don’t seem to fit where they should.

Trajectory of the government’s competition reforms

This recommits governments to a new wave of pro‑competitive reforms over the next decade. Work is already underway on a first tranche of 5 priority reforms to ease the cost‑of‑living pressure and reduce regulatory complexity. The 5 pillars are:

• Streamlining commercial planning and zoning systems to improve competition by encouraging firm entry and expansion and reducing business and regulatory costs.
• Lowering barriers to the adoption of international and overseas standards in regulation. As a first step, we are fast‑tracking the recognition of equivalent or superior overseas product safety standards, rather than relying only on domestic standards, to deliver safer and cheaper products. Following this, we will be working collaboratively to identify the priority sectors for the next phase of this reform.
• Supporting modern methods of construction such as prefab and modular by levelling the regulatory playing field with traditional methods of construction, unlocking time and cost savings, overcoming labour shortages and boosting lagging construction productivity.
• A nationally consistent worker screening check to boost labour mobility for care workers.
• Developing broader rights to repair, including for agricultural products, which could reduce repair costs and waste by providing consumers and businesses more choice for repair services.

State and territory reforms are backed by the government’s $900 million National Productivity Fund. This allows for the fiscal benefits of these reforms – which mostly flow to the Commonwealth – to be shared with those states and territories that choose to implement them. The idea is to encourage states and territories to undertake meaningful reforms for the benefit of the Australian people and the economy.

And this is just the start. The government will continue to work closely with industry and state and territories to build a more productive economy through national pro‑competitive reform options.

Further reform rounds will be informed by community consultation and the Productivity Commission’s 5 new inquiries.

They include inquiries into:

• creating a more dynamic and resilient economy
• building a skilled and adaptable workforce
• harnessing data and digital technology
• delivering quality care more efficiently, and
• investing in cheaper, cleaner energy and the net zero transformation.

Significant benefits flow from National Competition Policy

Significant benefits will flow from a revitalised National Competition Policy.

To help us understand the magnitude of the benefits, the Productivity Commission modelled the impact of 19 potential competition reforms (Productivity Commission 2024).

The Productivity Commission estimated that a revitalised National Competition Policy could result in an ongoing boost to GDP of up to $45 billion, an increase of up to $5,000 for every Australian household per year as well as lower prices by an estimated 0.7 to 1.5 per cent in the long run. This is significant. It is an enduring benefit for consumers, businesses and the economy. On‑par with the highly successful reform efforts of the 1990s and 2000s.

And the benefits of the reforms extend beyond their economic effect. For example, reforms in the care and support economy would increase the quality of care in areas such as health and disability support.

There is tough reform work to be done, but the benefits of delivering meaningful reform speak for themselves.

Closing remarks

I’d like to leave you with this final thought.

When Danish carpenter Ole Kirk Christiansen created his iconic company almost a century ago, he named it LEGO after the Danish phrase ‘leg godt’, which means ‘play well’ (LEGO n.d).

Christiansen understood that openness, rather than monopolistic drive, enabled dynamic, productive and constructive play that benefitted everyone involved.

Instead of a blood sport where players knocked each other out one by one, participants benefitted when they could create, learn, collaborate and share ideas.

Today, Lego is the world’s most popular toy, with consumers buying over 30 billion blocks per year.

Raising my 3 sons, I found that an afternoon spent playing Lego inspired creativity and laughter. Our evenings spent playing Monopoly often ended in tears.

In much the same way, we are all grappling with changes that are shifting the parameters of the playing field. The digital economy and transition to net zero are equivalent to that moment in time that Congressman Auchincloss described as ‘…throwing the board’, when people ‘get so frustrated that another person – out of, frankly, pure luck – ends up on Park Place and is able to just extract rents every time you cross or you pass go’ (Klein 2025).

Through microdata‑driven analysis of market concentration, revitalised National Competition Policy, and the continuation of productive collaboration between the Commonwealth, state and territory governments, competition should foster innovation and opportunity. More Lego, less Monopoly.

Source: Australian Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry

Thank you for the opportunity to address you today. I acknowledge the Gadigal people of the Eora nation and pay my respects to all First Nations people present. Their connection to community and country reminds us of our ongoing responsibility to care for each other.

The Gospel of Matthew teaches us powerfully:

‘Truly, I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ (Matthew 25:40)

This teaching resonates deeply with Australia’s ideals of fairness and community. Yet, our society today faces a significant challenge: inequality. Inequality matters profoundly – not just economically, but morally, socially, and spiritually. It shapes opportunities, influences life outcomes, and determines who shares in our national prosperity.

In reflecting upon inequality today, I’d like to begin with a thought experiment developed by the Dutch economist Jan Pen.

Imagine all Australians marching in a one‑hour parade, their height reflecting their wealth.

At first, you wouldn’t see anyone – the poorest Australians, submerged by debt, would be underground. Several minutes would pass before you see people the height of tiny insects, representing those with minimal savings and precarious jobs. At half‑time, the parade participants would be barely waist‑high, reflecting an average wealth level that is far below what many expect.

It isn’t until the last few minutes that the parade gets dramatic. Australians become giants, several metres tall, owning investment properties and multiple cars. In the last seconds, billionaires appear, their heads literally in the clouds. The richest Australian would tower over 46 kilometres high – far above Mt Everest.

This image vividly captures the scale and drama of inequality in Australia today.

The historical journey of Australian inequality

Yet it was not always like this. As I documented in my book Battlers and Billionaires, Australian history shows fluctuations in inequality, shaped by policy, events, and the collective actions of citizens.

When British settlers first arrived in 1788, inequality was limited – not due to idealism, but survival. Governor Arthur Phillip’s invitations to dinner famously concluded, ‘Please bring your own bread,’ reflecting the scarcity of resources and the reality that inequality was limited by necessity.

Yet inequality quickly rose through the nineteenth century, driven by land distribution favouring the wealthy. Under Governor Lachlan Macquarie, who ruled the colony from 1810 to 1821, more than half the land granted went to just the top 10 per cent of settlers. By the late nineteenth century, disparities between landowners and labourers were immense. Historian Stuart Macintyre describes colossal extremes between the luxurious life of pastoralists like Richard Casey and the hard labour endured by workers like Jock Neilson, who struggled through bush labour with minimal wages and harsh living conditions.

The early twentieth century brought change. In 1907, the Harvester Judgement established a basic wage designed to lift families out of poverty. Australia saw the creation of institutions such as the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court, introducing worker rights into the national conscience. Still, stark inequalities remained, with large segments of society excluded from prosperity.

However, the post‑war period between the 1940s and 1970s marked what economists call the ‘Great Compression.’ Strong unions, progressive taxation, expanded public services, and affordable housing policies dramatically reduced inequality. For several decades, Australians experienced significant upward social mobility and rising standards of living for the majority.

Yet since the 1980s, Australia has seen what economists describe as a ‘Great Divergence,’ reversing the gains of earlier decades. Today, the top 1 per cent of income earners receive nearly 10 per cent of national income, nearly doubling their share from 40 years ago. Wealth inequality is even more extreme, with the richest fifth owning more than 60 times the wealth of the bottom fifth.

This widening gap is not just economic – it profoundly affects people’s everyday lives. Those at the bottom face greater health challenges, including a stark difference in life expectancy – Australians in the richest fifth of the population live an average of 6 years longer than those in the poorest fifth. The poorest Australians have 7 fewer teeth on average due to poor dental care. In education, the wealth gap translates into substantial resource disparities between affluent and poorer communities.

Why inequality matters

Inequality does not simply represent a difference in wealth; it shapes our society. Excessive inequality erodes social cohesion, reducing empathy and undermining community bonds. When wealth is concentrated among a few, society becomes fragmented. Our sense of collective responsibility diminishes, and the fabric that binds us as Australians weakens.

Catholic social teaching stresses the inherent dignity of every person, the importance of community, and the imperative to act justly towards one another. From Pope Francis’ call for inclusive economies to teachings on the common good, Catholic faith underscores the urgency of addressing rising inequality.

For too many Australians, the promise of a fair go – the belief that effort and hard work determine success, not birth or background – has felt increasingly out of reach. Inequality is not just an abstract economic issue; it affects our communities, our health, our opportunities, and our sense of national cohesion.

No government is perfect, but I want to argue today that ours has done more to address inequality than any government in well over a decade.

Taking office 3 years ago, on the tail of the Covid pandemic, we have acted decisively to ensure that prosperity is shared more fairly across our society.

Lifting wages and supporting secure work

One of the most direct ways to reduce inequality is by lifting wages and ensuring job security. Since coming to office, the Albanese government has delivered consecutive wage increases for 2.6 million Australians, particularly benefiting low‑ and middle‑income earners. These pay rises ensured that minimum wage workers were not left behind as the cost of living rises.

Furthermore, our government has tackled insecure work by introducing stronger protections for casual employees who want to transition to permanent work, establishing minimum standards for gig economy workers, and enforcing ‘same job, same pay’ provisions to prevent labour hire workers from being exploited. These reforms help ensure that Australians can rely on stable incomes, reducing the financial precarity that fuels inequality.

A fairer tax system

Tax policy plays a crucial role in shaping economic fairness. The Albanese government has delivered tax cuts that benefit every Australian taxpayer, allowing people to keep more of what they earn while ensuring that the system remains progressive.

This approach contrasts with our predecessors, whose tax policies disproportionately benefited the highest earners, widening the gap between rich and poor. By maintaining a fair and responsible tax structure, we can fund essential public services while ensuring that the most fortunate Australians contribute their fair share.

Strengthening the social safety net

A strong, targeted welfare system is essential to reducing inequality, and our government has taken decisive action to support those who need it most. We have increased JobSeeker and other income support payments, ensuring that Australians doing it tough can afford the basics. Recognising the unique challenges faced by older Australians, we have also expanded eligibility for higher JobSeeker rates for those over 55, providing more security and dignity in later years.

Rent assistance has been increased by over 40 per cent, helping Australians struggling with rising housing costs. Single parents have received greater support through extended access to the parenting payment, making it easier for them to balance work and caregiving responsibilities without falling into poverty. These targeted measures lift Australians up rather than trapping them in cycles of disadvantage.

Investing in affordable housing

Housing inequality is one of the most pressing economic issues facing Australia today. The Albanese government has responded with the largest investment in social and affordable housing in more than a decade. Through the Housing Australia Future Fund, we are building over 55,000 new social and affordable homes, directly addressing homelessness and housing stress.

Beyond construction, we have strengthened renters’ rights, introducing minimum rental standards, limiting rent increases to once per year, and requiring genuine grounds for eviction. By making renting fairer and ensuring more Australians have access to stable, affordable housing, we are creating a foundation for economic security and social mobility.

Early childhood education and skills training

Breaking the cycle of inequality starts with education. That’s why we have delivered cheaper childcare for 96 per cent of families with children in early education – an investment that not only reduces financial strain but also ensures that more children, regardless of their family’s income, start life with the educational support they need.

In schools, we have delivered on the promise of the Gonski report by ensuring that all schools are funded to the schooling resource standard. This isn’t just about money, it’s about delivering the resources required to drive reform. We know that Australia’s OECD PISA scores have been slipping backwards for the past quarter‑century. If we do not turn this around, the most vulnerable stand to suffer most.

Our government has also committed to over half a million fee‑free TAFE places, ensuring that Australians can gain the skills needed for secure, well‑paying jobs. By making education more accessible, we are expanding opportunities for people from all backgrounds, ensuring that no one is locked out of good jobs because they cannot afford the necessary training.

Fairer pay for women

We cannot talk about overall economic inequality without considering gender inequality. The Albanese government has delivered historic pay rises for aged care and early childhood education workers – sectors dominated by women – while expanding paid parental leave to 26 weeks by 2026 and adding superannuation to government‑paid parental leave. These measures help to close the gender wealth gap, ensuring that women are not financially penalised for caring responsibilities. The gender pay gap is still too high, but it is also at an all‑time low.

Tackling the cost of living

Inequality is exacerbated when basic essentials become unaffordable. That’s why we have delivered targeted cost‑of‑living relief, including $300 in energy bill relief for every household and cheaper medicines that allow millions of Australians to buy 2 months’ worth of prescription medication for the price of one. We have also ensured that HECS‑HELP loans will never grow faster than wages, reducing the financial burden on young Australians starting their careers.

Another major reform is our work in the energy sector. By expanding investment in renewable energy and breaking down barriers to new market entrants, we are reducing energy costs for consumers while ensuring a transition to a cleaner economy. High energy prices disproportionately impact low‑income Australians, and our efforts to foster a more competitive and efficient energy market are directly reducing cost‑of‑living pressures.

Historically, reducing inflation in Australia meant higher unemployment. In the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, bouts of inflation were met by job losses. Often, it took a recession to bring prices under control. Yet this time is different. Uniquely in Australian history, we have brought inflation under control while maintaining what economists call ‘full employment’. We have tamed inflation while creating over one million jobs. Unemployment remains low, and the participation rate is at a record high. This is a remarkable achievement for our nation.

Investing in health equity

Health disparities are one of the most damaging consequences of inequality, with lower‑income Australians facing shorter life expectancies and higher rates of chronic illness. Our government has made the largest investment in bulk billing in Medicare’s history, restoring affordable access to GPs for millions of Australians. We have also established new urgent care clinics and expanded mental health services, ensuring that healthcare is based on need, not wealth.

Competition reforms to reduce inequality

A truly fair economy is one where businesses compete on a level playing field, ensuring that consumers and small businesses are not left behind. Monopolies increase inequality by transferring resources from consumers (the many) to shareholders (the few). The Albanese government has prioritised competition reform to prevent market concentration from deepening inequality.

One of our key achievements has been strengthening competition in the grocery sector. By increasing regulatory oversight and cracking down on anti‑competitive behaviour by major supermarket chains, we are ensuring fairer prices at the checkout. We know that when competition declines, consumers pay more, and smaller businesses struggle. Our policies ensure that Australian families are not subject to artificially inflated food prices while smaller retailers have a fair chance to succeed.

Through the biggest overhaul of merger laws in half a century and a revitalised National Competition Policy, we are putting downward pressure on prices and increasing fairness. This approach reflects our commitment to an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top.

A commitment to evidence‑based solutions

A key principle of our government is ensuring that policies are grounded in evidence, not ideology. That is why we have created the Australian Centre for Evaluation, and committed to expanding the use of randomised trials in policymaking, ensuring that every dollar spent on social programs delivers real results. By rigorously evaluating what works, we can scale up the most effective initiatives, ensuring that public investment leads to meaningful reductions in inequality.

Conclusion: a shared moral and national imperative

Inequality is a profound challenge – but not insurmountable. Australian history reminds us that inequality is never inevitable. It expands or shrinks based on the decisions we make collectively as a society.

There is much more to do, but I have given you a flavour today of what we have already done together. The Albanese government has chosen to lift wages, invest in housing and education, strengthen social protections, reform competition, and deliver targeted cost‑of‑living relief. These policies lift people up – not just economically, but socially and morally.

As the Gospel of Matthew reminds us, true compassion is measured by our actions towards ‘the least of these.’ We must constantly ask ourselves: Are our policies fair? Are our communities inclusive? Is every Australian being given the chance to thrive?

The Albanese government is committed to answering these questions positively – not just with words, but through meaningful action. Together, we can create a society where dignity, justice, and opportunity are the lived reality for every Australian.

Source: Australian Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry

The Albanese Government is committed to ensuring the Tax Practitioners Board (TPB) has the expertise to effectively regulate tax practitioners and uphold professional and ethical standards.

The Government has made the following reappointments and appointments of part‑time members of the TPB:

• Reappointed Mr Steven Dobson for a one‑year period
• Reappointed Ms Debra Anderson for a two‑year period
• Appointed Ms Joanna Bird, Ms Amanda Gascoigne and Ms Merran Kelsall AO each for a three‑year period

These appointments bring a diverse range of skills and experience to support the TPB’s critical role in maintaining public trust in the tax profession.

Ms Anderson has been a member of the TPB since 18 February 2019. She is an experienced tax agent and former Business Activity Statement (BAS) agent who has operated a tax advisory business for approximately 20 years.

Mr Dobson has been a member of the TPB since 30 March 2022. He works in an associated industry to tax practitioners where he has operated a financial advisory business for over 20 years. He has experience on various Western Australian Government boards.

Ms Bird is an experienced financial services regulator, lawyer and academic. She was a senior executive at ASIC for 10 years. Currently she is a self‑employed consultant providing advice on financial market and services regulation. Ms Bird is also an Adjunct Professor in law at the University of New South Wales and Monash University.

Ms Gascoigne is an experienced tax agent, governance professional, and educator. She founded and operated a regional accounting firm for 18 years, providing tax and advisory services to small businesses. She is also actively involved in mentoring and supporting accountants in professional development.

Ms Kelsall is an experienced governance professional, CEO and academic. She was the Chair and CEO of the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board; a member of the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board; a partner at BDO; and Professor of Practice at the University of New South Wales Business School. Currently Ms Kelsall is on various boards.

The TPB is the national body responsible for the registration and regulation of tax practitioners. Its work supports public trust and confidence in the integrity of the tax profession by ensuring that tax agent services are provided to the community in accordance with appropriate standards of professional and ethical conduct.

Source: Australian Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry

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.

Source: Australian Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry

Sarah Ferguson:

Treasurer Jim Chalmers joins me now from Parliament House. Treasurer, welcome to 7.30.

Jim Chalmers:

Thanks for having me back on your show, Sarah.

Ferguson:

Now, you’ve described the $1.2 billion hit from Cyclone Alfred as a quote, ‘big new pressure’ on the budget. As important as this is, with government spending forecasted about $730 billion this financial year, is emphasising this a form of misdirection ahead of the Budget?

Chalmers:

Of course, it isn’t. What makes it a big new pressure on the budget is that most of the announcements that we made over the course of the last couple of months were already provisioned for in the mid‑year budget update. What makes this different, what makes this $1.2 billion a big new pressure on the budget is the fact that it’s come at us quite late for obvious reasons and so we found room for that in the budget, so it’s a key pressure on the budget. It’s not the only pressure on the budget. There is global economic uncertainty as well, there are other domestic pressures closer to home, but that’s a big new one.

Ferguson:

I want to talk to you about the global environment. You’ve argued today that that the more generalised impact on global trade will be the most severe impact for Australia rather than the impact of individual tariffs. How severe could that be?

Chalmers:

Well, nobody wins from a trade war and especially a trade-exposed country like ours. Our economy relies heavily on exports and so we’ve got a lot of skin in the game when it comes to these really disappointing developments. The escalating trade tensions around the world are really the biggest part now of this global economic uncertainty that we’re not immune from. And so what the Treasury modelled in coming to our view about the impact of the direct tariffs on Australia versus the indirect impact of these escalating trade tensions is that it’s the latter which is much more concerning for us when you consider not just what’s happening out of Washington D.C. but Beijing and elsewhere around the world. We are seeing the breakdown, that the rules of global economic engagement are being rewritten. We can’t pretend otherwise. These are not surprising changes, but they are seismic changes. It’s a whole new world in the global economy and that will impact our own economy and our own budget.

Ferguson:

Could it impact Australia’s ongoing fight against inflation?

Chalmers:

I think, as the Productivity Commission made clear today and as the OECD made clear overnight as well, 2 of the consequences of escalating trade tensions are slower growth and higher inflation. And again, it would be strange to conclude that we’d be immune from that. When these tariffs are imposed and when there’s the retaliatory nature of these escalating trade tensions, we do expect higher prices, that’s one of the obvious consequences of tariffs. We’ll see that around the world and we are at risk of seeing it here.

Ferguson:

Now in the near term. You spoke today about helping with cost of living in the budget, as you have a few times recently. Does the inflationary impact of those that cost‑of‑living relief stifle the likelihood of further interest rate cuts?

Chalmers:

I wouldn’t have thought so, Sarah, but again, I don’t want to give free advice to the independent Reserve Bank, but what we’ve been very careful to do in our first 3 budgets, and we’ll be careful again in our fourth Budget, is to provide cost‑of‑living help in the most responsible way that we can. One of the reasons why we’ve been able to get the budget in much better nick at the same time as we provide this cost‑of‑living relief over the last couple of years, is we’ve worked out the most responsible way to go about it and we’ll do that again.

Ferguson:

Now at the same time, there are some big energy price rises expected in some parts of Australia in July – from July, you’re going to have to find room for a new round of subsidies to deal with those, aren’t you?

Chalmers:

Well, there’ll be cost‑of‑living help. I’m not going to detail the nature of that on the programme tonight. I’m hoping you’ll have me back on Budget Night, Sarah and we can talk about these things in almost exactly a week’s time. There’ll be cost‑of‑living help in the budget. It’ll be meaningful but it will be responsible. It will recognise that even though we’ve made a lot of progress in our economy together, the Australian economy has genuinely turned a corner. We’ve got growth rebounding solidly, inflation down, real wages up, unemployment low, we’ve got the debt down – these are all good developments but people are still doing it tough and that’s why there’ll be cost‑of‑living relief in our fourth budget, just like there was in our first 3 but it will be really responsible once again.

Ferguson:

I’m not expecting you to detail them, but do you expect bipartisan support if you do roll out subsidies for energy relief?

Chalmers:

Well, I wouldn’t have thought so, Sarah, but it remains to be seen. I think one of the most surprising, most disappointing elements of this parliament has been whenever we’ve tried to help people with the cost of living, the Coalition under Peter Dutton has opposed that. They didn’t want us to provide a tax cut to every taxpayer, energy bill relief to every household, cheaper medicines, rent assistance, cheaper early childhood education, getting wages moving again, Fee-Free TAFE. It beggars belief, frankly, in the context of the pressure that people have been under that Peter Dutton has opposed all of that and that means people would be thousands of dollars worse off today if he had his way and they’ll be worse off still if he wins the election.

Ferguson:

Won’t it play out like this? You’ll challenge Peter Dutton to promise that he won’t reverse those subsidies if he wins government. That’s how it’ll go, won’t it?

Chalmers:

Well, let’s see what happens. We’ll announce our cost‑of‑living relief in the Budget, that won’t be the only element of the budget. A big part of the budget will also be about making our country and our economy more resilient to all of this global economic uncertainty but we would obviously ask the Opposition under Peter Dutton to do away with this habit that they’ve formed of opposing all of our cost‑of‑living help. Everyone in the parliament recognises that people have been under pressure the last few years, the difference is only the Labor Party has been there for people to help them with the cost of living and that cost‑of‑living help is rolling out right now despite the Coalition, not because of it.

Ferguson:

Now, in 2023, you instructed the Productivity Commission to carry out an inquiry into early childhood education. The result of that review that you requested was a recommendation for a commission to monitor performance and to increase accountability of the system. Where is that commission?

Chalmers:

We’re in the process of acting on the recommendations of that Productivity Commission inquiry. You know that we’ve acted on some of them. Already, the three‑day guarantee, for example, is one of the ways that we’ve acted on that –

Ferguson:

And in terms of the commission, will you be supporting a commission being formed?

Chalmers:

Well, we’re certainly supporting a much better way to make sure that providers are adhering to the national quality framework. And I know why you’re asking about this, Sarah. I thought, frankly, as a parent, some of the revelations on the ABC in the last day or so when it comes to early childhood education were very distressing. And distressing as well for the hundreds of thousands of people who work in the sector and do the right thing by our kids to see that some centres and some providers are falling short is very distressing and very disappointing. Now, we will work closely with the states and territories to make sure that people are meeting that national quality framework. As the Prime Minister said today, if there’s more work that needs to be done, of course we’ll do that. And the revelations from that report on the ABC will help us make sure that providers are up to the mark.

Ferguson:

Let me just come back to the question, though. In terms of a commission, you’re talking about better standards, but is that commission something that you’re going to roll out or not?

Chalmers:

Well, I think, as I said in the answer the first time you asked it, Sarah, we’re implementing the recommendations of the PC. We’re considering the best way to do that, but in the first instance, this is about the national quality framework, administered by the states and territories. But it’s a national regime and we want to make sure that kids are being treated appropriately in early childhood education. So we’ll continue to work with the states and territories to make sure that’s the case. Most centres, most providers, most educators, the overwhelming majority are doing the right thing by Australia’s young people. Where that’s not happening, we’ve all got a role in making sure that that improves.

Ferguson:

We’ll come back to it. Treasurer Jim Chalmers, see you at the Budget. Thank you very much indeed for joining us.

Chalmers:

Thank you, Sarah.

Source:

System updates

We continue to update Online services for agents to:

• align with legislative changes
• enhance functionality based on your feedback.

The functions available to you in the system are determined by the services you provide as a tax or BAS agent and your Access Manager permissions. This means you may not have access to view all available features.

March 2025

Card payments

The Card payment menu is now view only. Agents will not be able to make credit/debit card payments on behalf of clients. Other payment options are still available.

Access Manager

We have removed the ‘Make payments’ permission in Access Manager for tax and BAS agents to support the removal of credit/debit cards from payment options for one-off payments.

Fringe benefits tax

The current 2025 year fringe benefits tax (FBT) return is now available for lodgment.

2024

November 2024

Tax registrations

Tax agents can now register clients for pay as you go (PAYG) instalments using Online services for agents. As a tax agent, you will be able to add, update and cancel PAYG instalments for your eligible clients. Additionally, both tax and BAS agents will have access to view PAYG instalment registration details, including historical registrations.

June 2024

Not-for-profit self-review return

The new NFP self-review return to be completed from 1 July 2024 is available under the Lodgments tab on the Client summary page. The form is only available to registered tax agents who are linked to a client’s income tax account. You’ll also require the new Access Manager permission ‘NFP-self-review return’ to view, lodge or revise your client’s NFP self-review return.

Access Manager

New Access Manager permission ‘NFP-self-review return’ is now available to enable you to view, lodge or revise your client’s NFP self-review return.

AUSkey credentials

All AUSkey credentials have also been removed from Access Manager. The corresponding AUSkey mailboxes no longer appear in the mailbox list under Practice mail.

Bulk preferences

The maximum number of clients you can set communication preferences for in one transaction has been increased from 25 to 50.

Practice mail

New practice mail subjects are now available under the pay as you go (PAYG) topic.

April 2024

Add client and Maintain authorisations – Nudge messages

Under certain conditions, nudge messages may appear to prompt you to consider whether your selections will result in another agent being removed incorrectly or you not being able to select the account you need. Before continuing to the next section, you’ll then be given the option to press ‘Yes’ to continue or ‘No’ to go back to the previous screen.

For more information see:

2023

September 2023

On demand reports

‘Client nominations’ is a new on demand report available that provides a real-time view of nominations that have been completed by your client relating to client-to-agent linking. More information can be found in the ‘Reports and forms’ section of the Online services for agents user guide.

Excise system updates

We’re updating the systems so that excise duty returns and excise claims will now be available to lodge online from September. You will also be able to view transaction history, amend previous returns you have lodged online, easily submit a Nil return, and make payments and enter into a payment plan.

July 2023

Practice mail overdue client obligations message

We’re expanding our use of practice mail messages to provide you with information about your clients outstanding lodgment and/or payment obligations and necessary actions to be taken.

Where we have been unable to contact you by phone, we’ll leave a voicemail advising of our attempted contact and send a practice mail message via Online services for agents.

The practice mail message will include a PDF attachment with:

• details of the overdue obligations
• specific actions required to meet obligations, including self-serve options
• due dates for those actions
• a phone number if help is required.

April 2023

Lodgment deferrals

You can now submit and view lodgment deferral requests via the new Lodgment deferral form under the Reports and Forms menu.

Getting started – requests that meet our Agent assessed or New or re-engaged client deferral guidelines will be processed within 48 hours.

2022

December 2022

Add client and Maintain authorisations

We’re further strengthening the security of our online services to help protect you and your clients against fraud and identity-related theft.

We’re progressively rolling out the new Client-to-agent linking process to more taxpayers, starting with large businesses and some private groups. Taxpayers included will be required to complete an agent nomination before you can add them as a client or change existing authorisations. More information is available about which types of clients are included and what you need to do.

March 2022

Non-concessional contributions

You can now view display of historical (2018–19 financial years onward) and current non-concessional contributions for your client’s superannuation contributions.

January 2022

Digital instalment notice

This is a notice that contains all the relevant information for your clients to pay their instalment amounts. You can download the notice from Communication history and pass it onto your clients.

2021

December 2021

Reports

‘Reported transactions’ is a new pre-generated report available in the Client reports menu. You can view, filter and download reported transactions that occurred since 1 July 2017, for the following data types:

• business transactions through payment systems
• government grants
• taxable payments.

More information can be found in the Online services for agents user guide.

On demand reports

Outstanding activity statement

For current and previous 3 years, there are now additional columns of data providing a more comprehensive view of your client’s lodgment and payment obligations.

Income tax lodgment status

For current and previous 3 years, there are now additional columns of data providing a more comprehensive view of your client’s lodgment and payment obligations.

More information can be found in the ‘Reports and forms’ section of the Online services for agents user guide.

Practice mail

‘New topic’ and ‘Subjects’ are now available in Practice mail:

September 2021

Business

The menu item ‘Commonwealth procurement statement’ has been updated to ‘Statement of tax record’. There are additional fields to complete if your client is applying as a group head of an income tax consolidated group whose subsidiary member is tendering for a Commonwealth Government contract.

Advanced search

You can now allow 10,000 clients to be downloaded via CSV or HTML. If you have more than 10,000 clients, download your clients into separate list using filters.

Accounts and payments

The menu item ‘Excise and Resource Rent tax accounts’ has been replaced with new menu items:

• ‘Excise account’
• ‘Resource rent account’.

Accounts and payments

You can see the new GST Director Penalty account in ‘Accounts Summary’.

New client forms

For:

• fuel tax credit non-GST, you can now register and claim using Online Services for Agents.
• product stewardship for oil, you can now register and claim using Online Services for Agents.

July 2021

Payment plans

An ‘arrears’ status has been added to advise if scheduled payments have been missed.

June 2021

Communication preferences

The declaration has been updated. When you set communication preferences to ‘Practice’ you are designating Online services for agents as your client’s preferred address for certain ATO communications.

March 2021

JobMaker Hiring Credit

View payments

You can view payments made for JobMaker Hiring Credit claims.

Lodge an objection

This form now includes fields for you to provide the:

• grounds for the objection
• reasons for your client not lodging the objection on time.

It is no longer mandatory to upload an attachment to this form.

February 2021

JobMaker Hiring Credit

You can submit a JobMaker Hiring Credit claim.

January 2021

JobMaker Hiring Credit

You can view information about employees who have been nominated for the JobMaker Hiring Credit.