Sarah Ferguson wouldn’t let Jim Chalmers off the hook when the Treasurer sat down with her for his first post-Budget interview.
The 7.30 presenter peppered him with questions about the inflationary risks of the Budget and, in particular, why he was giving the $300 energy rebate to the rich.
“Do you accept that if the RBA raises rates after the budget, you will be to blame?” —He asked Chalmers.
“If there is a change in interest rates – and I know you are not going to make that decision – will you accept that this budget has failed to convince you?”
Chalmers worked hard not to admit that, of course, any rise in interest rates would be blamed on his spending.
‘I don’t think this is the only measure of a decent budget. “We’re trying to put downward pressure on inflation,” he responded.
But it was not his most convincing effort.
“It would be a devastating verdict on this budget, wouldn’t it?” Ferguson insisted, twisting the political knife.
“I am very confident that this budget we are putting downward pressure on inflation…” Chalmers insisted, like Monty Python’s Black Knight.
Sarah Ferguson (pictured) didn’t let Jim Chalmers out of trouble when the Treasurer sat down with her for his first post-Budget interview.
A simple superficial wound… and that was the easy part of the interview.
It went from bad to worse when Chambers tried to sell his $300 energy rebate for everyone; It is not means tested and will be distributed to all income levels.
It gave Ferguson the opportunity to pursue his doctorate in political science with a lesson in basic economics:
“There are plenty of people who are not in central Australia like you and who don’t need help paying their bills,” Ferguson said, without directly referring to the Treasurer’s nearly $400,000 in net income.
‘Why do you need to give those people energy relief?’
If looks could kill…
Chalmers, unfazed, came out to bat for himself and his fellow high earners.
Jim Chalmers gave his budget speech in Parliament on 14 May 2024
Treasurer Jim Chalmers delivered the budget Tuesday night, boasting a $9.3 billion surplus driven by a strong labor market and rising commodity prices.
“I think these cost-of-living pressures go up and down the income scale,” he said.
You could imagine Albo disgustedly throwing his impending refund at the television screen.
‘Yes, but will he recognize that there are people who are not under the bomb?’ Ferguson persisted, refraining from personally reappointing Chalmers.
The Treasurer seemed to think he was winning on this score: “These cost-of-living pressures are being applied broadly in our community… it makes sense to do it broadly.”
Like a juvenile predator, Ferguson couldn’t finish playing with his food before eating it: ‘You already did the tax cut and here you are deciding to give extra money to rich people. I don’t think you’ve explained yet why you’re doing that…’
The exchange went on and on before this: “We don’t have an answer as to why those people are getting that money,” Ferguson insisted.
“I think so,” Chalmers replied defiantly.
‘I’m going to disagree with you…’ she replied, and so did I, but let’s move on.
Ferguson wanted to hear exactly why all this extra money through rebates and tax cuts going to the rich wasn’t just going to result in more spending that would stoke inflation.
“We received clear advice from the Treasury” was the gist of the response. If you didn’t doubt the Treasury’s advice when you found out it was forecasting lower inflation than the RBA, you probably should now.
When Ferguson tried to explain Economics 101 to the Treasurer, he finally responded, “Let’s not make it too complicated.”
“It’s a simple thing,” Ferguson responded.
“Inflation has to do with supply and demand.”
In fact, it is.
Federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers kisses his wife Laura after delivering the 2024-25 budget in Parliament
Finally Chalmers returned to his speech notes: “People don’t have a lot of extra money lying around.”
“You’re about to give them something,” Ferguson said, including all income levels.
Perhaps the last thing Chalmers expected after reducing the extent to which the stage three tax cuts go to the rich, was an effort to demolish his preferential treatment of the rich.
“What we’re talking about here is easing people’s bills,” Chalmers noted at the end of the interview, without the characteristic confidence with which he began.
