Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question goes to the Treasurer. According to the Australian Financial Review, the Treasurer's medium-term budget forecasts have blown out by around $57 billion since the election. The Treasurer has been unable to explain why; the Independent Parliamentary Budget Office has been unable to explain why, and today the Secretary to the Treasury was unable to explain why. Nobody seems to know. Why won't the Treasurer come clean about his $57 billion budget black hole?

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

Thank you to the honourable member for his question. I wanted to begin my answer by putting him at ease. He shouldn't read anything into the fact that the member for Goldstein got all the early questions today or that the member for Hume has had a haircut. He shouldn't read anything into any of those things. When it comes to the substance of his question—

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's Timmy time!

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

Order! The Treasurer will pause. The member for Bruce will leave the chamber under 94(a).

The member for Bruce then left the chamber.

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

There are a couple of important elements to the answer to his question. The first one is, and he may not be aware, that in the last few minutes, as I understand it, in estimates where the fiscal group were, they did talk about the change that you're referring to. I think they answered a number of questions about it, and so it may be that you've not yet caught up with that, but that's understandable because you've been in here with us. That's the first point. The second point is that, as I said on the day of the release of the mid-year budget update in the middle of December, a big driver of the medium-term change has been the provision that we made for the hospitals deal that has subsequently been struck by the health minister and the Prime Minister. So a big part of the change over that 10-year medium-term period, as I said on the day of the MYEFO release, is the provision that we made for hospitals.

The third point is, if you look at the last year of the medium term—in the middle of the 2030s—in the last year, the biggest driver of the change is a change in receipts. There will be lower receipts. I think I made that point in response to a question from a journalist in the last couple of weeks—two or three weeks—so we have answered his question comprehensively.

Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you haven't!

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

It's been answered in estimates and now it's been answered—what? Are you serious?

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

Hang on a second, Manager of Opposition Business. We're going to do this in an orderly way as we always do. The Treasurer is going to pause. The manager, under the standing orders, is allowed to make his point of order, and I'm going to allow him to do so now.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On relevance, the Treasurer is speaking about an answer given by other people in another place. He's been asked here in the House of Representatives to answer a question. He's saying someone else has answered it somewhere else, but won't tell you what—

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

Resume your seat. You've made the point of order.

The Minister for Defence Industry is now warned. When the Treasurer was asked about the department and was unable to explain why, the Treasurer is providing—I'm listening carefully, trust me.

The Treasurer, let me deal with the manager. I'll come back to you. He's giving information to the House. He spoke about the official speaking at estimates providing that information, so he's answering directly that part of the question and providing information. You may disagree with what he's saying, but he is being directly relevant in providing information to the House about what he was asked about. You're correct to raise it, but he's also correct in answering the question.

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