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

I've answered his question comprehensively in at least three different ways. I refer him to the estimates transcript. I'm trying to be respectful in case he doesn't have many more question times as the shadow Treasurer. I'm asking him to refer to that. Now, the number that the Treasury has provided is 54. You really should know that; they've done that publicly. The budget papers don't provide that number, but that number has been provided in estimates. The two main drivers of that number are lower receipts and a provision for the hospitals deal.

I finish on this point: if those opposite think that we shouldn't be investing that money in our hospitals, then they should tell the Australian people how much they'll cut from hospitals, because, on the spending side, the major driver of the difference is hospitals. What this tells us is that they haven't changed a bit since, the last time they were in office, they went after Medicare and went after health funding. They'll go after hospitals if they get into office. This is the second, related point. He asked about the Parliamentary Budget Office. The Parliamentary Budget Office—get this—says that their medium term, their 10-year period, would be $142 billion weaker than ours. So the deterioration in the budget, if they had won the election, would be three times bigger than the deterioration that the shadow Treasurer is asking me about. I conclude by saying it's no wonder he's unlikely to last the week.

See this speech in context