Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. Since this Treasurer has come to office, living standards have collapsed, prices are still rising fast and Labor's reckless spending has kept inflation higher for longer. Having already made Australians poorer, why is this Labor government making future generations pay for its economic incompetence by raiding the Future Fund?

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

The member for Moreton is warned.

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

A bit like with the question that the Prime Minister comprehensively answered a moment ago, it's a bit rich for those opposite to be asking us about inflation when we've more than halved inflation. When we came to office inflation was higher than six per cent; now it's got a two in front of it. So, why they would ask us about inflation, after the shocking record they had on inflation, which they left for us to clean up, is completely beyond me. They've got a lot of nerve to ask about inflation. The same goes—

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

The Treasurer is going to pause. We're going to get onto this early. The member for Deakin is not going to give a running commentary during this or any other answer. He's going to cease interjecting for the remainder of this question. Otherwise, he'll leave the chamber, to assist the House.

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

Thank you, Speaker. They've got a lot of nerve asking about spending, as well. As the Prime Minister comprehensively pointed out a moment ago, we've been cleaning up the mess that they left of the budget that they inherited. They said there would be a surplus in every single one of their nine years; they went none for nine. They didn't deliver a single surplus in their time in office, and we're two for two. So, if he wants to ask me—

An honourable member interjecting—

Stop pre-scripting his points of order!

Government members interjecting—

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

Order! The Treasurer is going to cease talking and pause. Any member can raise a point of order under the standing orders. I don't know why this is so hard for everyone to understand today, but that's the rules, and that's what we're following. So, the member for Hume on a point of order?

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On relevance: the Prime Minister refused to defend the Treasurer's decision. Perhaps the Treasurer—

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

Resume your seat.

The member for Macarthur will leave the chamber under 94(a). We just had an explanation about why people are entitled to raise points of order, and the member for Hume is entitled to do that. But you can't add extra things in. You can't jump up and just have a free-for-all. It's not within the standing orders. And if that starts, you can imagine where that could end. So how about we just agree today that you take the point of order, you say 'relevance' and you don't add extra things. That's going to help question time; it's going to help everyone do their job, including mine. The Treasurer was asked a broad question, like the similar one before. And if you have a question in there about why the government is making future generations pay for government's decisions, well, he's going to have to answer that, and he's answering that. That's the crux of the question. So, he's going to be broad with his answer because the question was broad.

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

The shadow Treasurer would not know the first thing about relevance or about inflation or about government spending. The record that we have had in office has been to turn around two very substantial deficits and to turn them into two very substantial surpluses. Those are facts. Those are in the final budget outcomes for our two full years in office. Those are facts. That's because we're banking upward revisions to revenue, we're finding savings, we're doing all the things that those opposite said they would do but were completely incapable of doing in their nine, almost 10, years in office. So, he's welcome to continue to ask me about inflation or spending. We're making progress on both of those fronts.

I'm also very pleased that he's asked me about the Future Fund reforms, because we have made some important announcements today about the future of the Future Fund. What his question goes to is that every time they arc up and play up about our changes to the Future Fund reminds every Australian that they don't want to see more investment in housing, that they don't want to see more investment in cleaner and cheaper energy, that they don't want to see more investment in the kind of infrastructure that makes our economy more resilient and our people more secure.

The changes that we are announcing today are not about messing with the independence of the Future Fund. They're not about changing the expected rate of return or the Future Fund board's approach to risk. What they are about is making sure that this tremendous national asset that we have as Australians is working in the service of our national economic interests. That means working in the service of our workers, our communities, our businesses and our investors. That's what these changes are all about.

If they don't support more investment in housing, or in cleaner and cheaper energy or infrastructure, that just goes once again to the risk that they pose to our economy and to household budgets.