Coalition Criticises Labor’s Economic Strategy, Promises Better Financial Management

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has criticised the Albanese government’s economic management following the release of highlights from its Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO).

Dutton warned that another term under Labor would harm the economy, claiming the Coalition is better equipped to manage finances.

“I don’t think Australians can afford another three years of Anthony Albanese and Labor,” Dutton told reporters in Adelaide.

“We’re much better at managing money than Labor, who tax and spend, and when they run out of money, tax more, driving up inflation.”

Labor Blames Coalition for Budget Deficit

Labor, however, has blamed the previous Coalition government for inflating budget figures and worsening the current deficit.

The MYEFO reveals $16.3 billion in fixed costs and $8.8 billion in unavoidable spending.

Finance Minister Katy Gallagher criticised the former government for these financial burdens, citing ongoing programs without sufficient funding.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers defended the additional spending outlined in MYEFO, which includes $3.6 billion for aged care indexation, $3.1 billion for early childhood education, $2.3 billion for Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme, and an extra $1.8 billion for disaster relief.

“When the Coalition criticises this as overspending, what they’re really targeting are Medicare, medicines, and pensions,” Chalmers told reporters.

Economic and Energy Challenges

Dutton warned of further economic challenges, highlighting seven consecutive quarters of “household recession.”

He said families are suffering from high energy costs, citing South Australians paying “three times the price” of households in U.S. states using nuclear and renewables.

“We’re paying up to 56 cents a kilowatt hour. In Wyoming and Tennessee, they’re paying 18 cents for the same mix,” he said, stressing the need for gas as a short-term solution.

The Opposition leader accused the government of “de-industrialising” Australia by failing to address energy grid stability as baseload power exits the system by 2034.

“Green hydrogen is not commercially viable now. We need an adult debate on this,” he said.

He added that the Coalition’s vision includes job creation and energy affordability.

“We want our economy to expand, not contract.”

Dutton Stands by Nuclear Energy Costings

Responding to Jim Chalmers’ claim that the Coalition’s nuclear energy proposal would cost $4 trillion in lost growth by 2050, Dutton dismissed it as “comical,” defending nuclear energy as a credible and cost-effective option.

Dutton emphasised that Frontier conducted the analysis without payment to maintain its independence.

“Frontier Economics, the most credible energy modeler in the country, has shown that Labor’s 100 percent renewables-only policy would cost closer to $600 billion—five times what the prime minister claimed,” he said.

Dutton said their modelling shows electricity prices would be 44 percent cheaper under the Coalition’s nuclear and renewables mix compared to Labor’s renewables-only policy.

“It’s a like-for-like comparison, and Frontier’s work demonstrates the long-term cost benefits of nuclear energy,” he said, adding that global leaders are embracing nuclear to achieve net-zero targets.

“In the United States, it’s a 37 percent cost difference. This is about keeping the lights on, getting prices down, and decarbonising responsibly,” Dutton said.

Labor Energy Minister Chris Bowen dismissed the Coalition’s projections, calling them unrealistic and accusing the opposition of using “magical assumptions” to understate the costs of nuclear energy.

“CSIRO and AEMO have consistently identified nuclear as the most expensive form of energy. The Coalition’s claim that nuclear is cheaper simply doesn’t pass the pub test,” Bowen said, referring to the 2024-25 GenCost draft report that found nuclear plants could cost twice as much as solar or wind energy, despite the longer lifespan of nuclear.