Chalmers claims Coalition planning ‘secret cuts’ as Taylor guarantees health and education spending – as it happened (2025)

Thanks for following along with us tonight for the treasurers’ debate, as Jim Chalmers and Angus Taylor went head to head for the first time. Here are the key takeaways from the debate:

• The treasurer kicked off the debate by saying Labor’s economic plan has Australia well-placed to face “uncertain times in the world,” by building on the progress from the past three years.

• In his opening remarks, the shadow treasurer claimed Australians were worse off now than they were three years ago.

• Chalmers took aim at the Coalition more broadly, saying the party was “full of these kind of Doge-y sycophants who have hitched their wagon to American-style slogans and policies”.

• Taylor, meanwhile, argued Chalmers was overseeing a “lost decade”, while taking aim at Labor’s budget.

• The treasurer accused Taylor of being “evasive” when asked what the Coalition would cut to fund its nuclear reactors.

• Chalmers accused Taylor of using “made up numbers” to attack Labor’s economic credentials, after being asked if he would apologise for Labor’s promise of a $275 reduction in energy prices at the last election.

• Taylor promised the Coalition would guarantee health and education spending.

• He also repeatedly pointed to the Coalition’s fuel excise cuts and its plan to stop wasteful spending.

• In closing, Chalmers said the election was a choice between “responsible economic management” or “Dutton’s Coalition of cuts and chaos,” repeating his warning against their “secret cuts”.

• Taylor, instead, pointed to his experience in business and economics and said Australia “can’t afford another three years like the last three”.

Krishani Dhanji will be back with you bright and early tomorrow morning, for yet another day on the campaign trail. Until then, take care and enjoy your night.

Are Australians better off than three years ago?

Many times throughout tonight’s debate, the question of whether Australians are better off today than they were three years ago was raised.

Our economics editor, Patrick Commins, says it’s not black and white:

Taylor gives closing remarks

Angus Taylor is also giving his closing remarks, saying that “Australians can’t afford another three years like the last three”.

Before I came into politics, I spent 25 years in business and economics, advising people at the highest level in business, starting businesses and working in our family farm, I want to take that experience to be the treasurer, if I get the opportunity, of this great nation to work with every Australian to get our country back on track.

And with that, the treasurers’ debate has wrapped up.

Chalmers gives closing remarks

Giving his closing statement, Jim Chalmers said this was an important moment for the economy to decide “whether we go to the world more resilient under Labor or more vulnerable under the Coalition”.

And this debate and Angus’s inability to come clean on his secret cuts to pay for his nuclear reactors has made the choices really clear – whether we build on the progress that we’ve made together, or whether we take Australia backwards …

There could not be a more important time for responsible economic management, which has been the defining feature of this Albanese government. And there could not be a worse time to risk Peter Dutton’s Coalition of cuts and chaos, which would make Australians worse off and take Australians backwards, because when Peter Dutton cuts, every Australian will pay.

International student numbers discussed

Asked if Australia needs more or less migrants, Angus Taylor responded:

Right now, we’ve had over a million people in just two years, which is double what was sustainable, and we’ve had half the housing we needed to support that. And so we’ve said very clearly, those numbers are too high, and that’s why we will impose student caps.

See Also

NRL Fantasy teams analysis: Round 6

Jim Chalmers said Labor also had a plan for student caps. Taylor quipped, “Well, these are real student caps, not pretend ones.”

Chalmers and Taylor asked about power of Greens

Jim Chalmers has ruled out a coalition with the Greens, as Labor has repeatedly done throughout this election campaign, after being asked about Adam Bandt’s comments at the National Press Club today.

Asked if it would be “dangerous” for the Greens to hold more power after this election, Chalmers replied:

Well, that’s in the hands of the Australian people who’ve got the ability to elect a majority Labor government under Anthony Albanese.

Angus Taylor argued it would be “extremely dangerous” for Labor and the Greens to team up, and said:

We heard it from Adam Bandt today. He wants to do probably what Jim wants to do, because we know he’s asked for Treasury to do modelling on this [negative gearing changes].

Taylor quizzed on Coalition’s energy policy and costs

Andrew Clennell asked Angus Taylor why he delayed a decision on electricity price rises past election day:

Now you’re … releasing modelling claiming your gas reservation policy will cut power prices by a meager 3%, and your only other power price solution is 15 years away in nuclear. Why in 2022 did you hide that price rise from the Australian people?

Taylor responded “I absolutely didn’t,” and said:

In fact, what we saw in my time as energy minister is a cut in electricity prices of between 8% and 10% depending on whether you’re a small business, large business, or a household … If you can get gas prices down, it’s not just gas prices that come down for consumers – they clearly do – but also the price of food, the price of building materials, so much of our economy is energy.

Chalmers defends government spending in budget

Andrew Clennell has now been brought in to ask Chalmers and Taylor each a question.

He asked Chalmers about the spending outlined in the budget:

Isn’t this the opposite of your hero Paul Keating’s so-called beautiful set of numbers? Given these numbers, are you prepared to rule out cuts if you are re-elected, and haven’t you left Australia in a weak position in terms of a fiscal buffer for a global economic crisis?

The treasurer responded and said the budget was “$207bn stronger than when we came to office, and that’s made room for those investments”:

The deficit this year is half as big. We’ve made a structural difference to the budget in areas like the NDIS and aged care and also interest costs. And so we are getting the budget in much better nick, and we’re doing that without ignoring our responsibilities to people who are doing it tough.

Chalmers rejects notion government is ‘politically scared’ to undertake big tax reform

The host, Ross Greenwood, argued that both major parties were “politically scared to undertake big tax reform”. Jim Chalmers rejected this:

That’s not true, Ross. Three rounds of income tax cuts, including lifting thresholds and cutting rates … Build to rent tax reform, production tax credits, multinational tax reform … there’s been more tax reform done in this term of government than for a long time now …

We have found ways to provide substantial tax breaks and tax relief and all of the ways I’ve described, including the production tax credits that [Taylor] opposes.

Chalmers and Taylor have back-and-forth on health and education

Jim Chalmers has now asked Angus Taylor if he would repeat the same commitment to no cuts to health or education that his party took to the 2013 election.

The shadow treasurer responded:

We will bring a bill into the parliament to guarantee spending on essential services, including health and education.

Chalmers cut in:

Angus and Peter Dutton have both said the best indicator of future [performance] is what’s happened in the past. Now, in their first budget, after promising no cuts to health and education, they cut $80bn.

Taylor then responded:

I’ve been very clear about [our] health and education guarantee, in fact, right to the point where [on] health, we have already committed over $9bn to ensure that we deal with your mess where bulk billing has gone down sharply in your time in government.

Taylor asks another question on $275 power bill reduction promise

Angus Taylor has now been given the chance to ask Jim Chalmers a question, and turned back to the $275 promise.

Chalmers began by quipping:

Angus wrote down that question, and then you asked it, and he didn’t have the ability to think up a second question.

The treasurer continued, again bringing up the cost of the Coalition’s nuclear policy:

If you really cared about living standards, you wouldn’t have opposed our cost-of-living measures, and you wouldn’t be taking to this election higher income taxes, lower wages and secret cuts to pay for the nuclear reactors, that you still haven’t mentioned.