Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 608

Chalmers' disingenuous budget claims

Jim Chalmers said in his recent pre-election Treasurer’s debate with Angus Taylor that “there’s been a $207 billion cumulative improvement to the budget bottom line. The debt this year is $177 billion less than what we inherited.”

It’s a line he trots out often, but in reality, gross debt has risen $45 billion under the Albanese government and is expected to hit $1 trillion in 2025-26. So what does he mean?

Chalmers is referring to a statement in the March Budget papers: “The underlying cash balance has improved by a cumulative $207 billion over the seven years to 2028–29, compared to the 2022 Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook (PEFO)”, and this “means that gross debt is $177 billion lower in 2024–25 than forecast at the PEFO”.

So his statement that debt is ‘less’ is disingenuous. Something only falls when an actual number at a point in time is less than an actual number at a prior point in time. Not when it is less than a forecast number. Deviating from a guess is not the same as actual movement.

If we unpack the numbers here, $34.9 billion of the $207 billion is a restatement in the budget of the PEFO forecast underlying cash balances over the five years to 2028-29. The rest is actual deviation from the PEFO forecasts for the 2022-23 and 2023-24 financial years. The PEFO projected a combined deficit of $134.4 billion for the two years to 2023-24, but instead there were back-to-back surpluses totalling $37.9 billion.

When actual differs from forecast, it is usually due to government policy decisions and/or external impacts where key forecast parameters vary from reality. In the case of the two surplus years, the windfalls were almost all due to higher-than-expected commodity prices and therefore stronger company tax receipts. And, to a lesser extent, a robust labour market and a higher individual tax take, including some bracket creep.

Note that budget papers and the PEFO forecasts tend to be conservative with commodity price assumptions. They will normally revert to long-term averages quickly rather than persist with, or at least taper, prevailing higher market prices.

The 2022 PEFO was probably even more conservative with key assumptions, at a time when we were just emerging from the volatile Covid period. It surely is outdated for comparison purposes. In any case, had commodity price assumptions been more aligned with the market in the first two PEFO forecast years, the so-called budget windfall would not be as pronounced and would give politicians less to crow about.

How worthwhile is a comparison of actual to forecast budget measures, then? It can be useful but with limitations. In isolation, comparing forecast underlying cash balances to actual is not a good measure of fiscal prudence. But it can have some value if variations can be separated into policy versus external impacts. Are there factors outside of government control? Is there an element of luck?

A comparison can be worthwhile to the extent that forecast assumptions are realistic. If assumptions are too conservative, an apparent windfall might create the illusion of good government and tempt structural spending. Too aggressive, and worthwhile spending programs might be curbed. Forecasts should be as realistic as possible to foster policy and spending discipline, with actual outcomes used to assess policy decisions.

And as to whether a budget is really better off due to an actual versus expected windfall, that will depend on the nature of the gain and how it is used. If temporary, say as a result of a commodity boom, and the windfall is baked into permanent spending, then the budget has not improved. If temporary and used to pay down debt, then yes that translates into improvement. And if the windfall is structural as a result of good policy, then that improves the long-term budget position.

Budget numbers revealed a tax revenue windfall under the Albanese government of nearly $400 billion that contributed to the two surpluses. However, the bulk of that has been locked into spending, leaving just $95 billion to go towards budget repair. Spending as a percentage of GDP is forecast to reach 27.2% in 2025-26, up from 24.4% in 2022-23.

It would seem, then, that the government did not heed the advice of economist Chris Richardson. After the second surplus was revealed, Richardson said that “while it’s very tempting whenever there’s a surplus, we can’t pretend that the good news is forever and make permanent decisions off the back of temporary luck.”

 

Tony Dillon is a freelance writer and former actuary.

 

3 Comments
Stephen
April 27, 2025

Chalmers is a spin Doctor: he fails to acknowledge the AUD against other countries: our economy has worsened under Labour and every one of us, be it business or person, has less purchasing power. The AUD is our economy's performance against other countries!

Russell Wadey
April 25, 2025

Of course, Tony, Chalmers also occasionally notes that 'balancing the budget' is NOT AN END IN ITSELF.
By which he is acknowledging the 'deficit myth': for a currency-issuing monetary sovereign, Federal Government spending is NOT (indeed, operationally cannot be) funded by taxation (bond issuance does not serve that purpose either).
Deficit spending by the government sector in the economy is normal, and normally required, to maintain stability in the private sector (unless running a significant foreign sector surplus).
Don't believe me? Look at our modern (since the gold standard was abandoned) history. Few surpluses, usually resulting in recession. Pre-GFC being the classic example.
Of course, politically, Charmers can't say the 'real world economics' bit out loud. To many economic ignoramuses in the rest of the political sphere, and in the commentariat.
Now if pollies could have a REAL conversation about the distributional and sustainability issues of our modern monetary system, we might start to address the changes we are going to HAVE TO eventually make, forced on us by climate change. As if :(
So everything in your article is really just a sideshow, reflecting the state of politics in this (and other) countries.

Neil
April 25, 2025

Great article, Tony. I concur with your implied comment that budgets/forecasts are a sophisticated management tool to help get ACTUAL good results; without them, you rely on luck.

“So his statement that debt is ‘less’ is disingenuous. Something only falls when an actual number at a point in time is less than an actual number at a prior point in time. Not when it is less than a forecast number. Deviating from a guess is not the same as actual movement.”

This is the same sleight of hand that the PM uses when he tries to hoist Dutton on his former Health Minister’s petard. Unfortunately, Dutton to date has not had the ability to pull out the ACTUALS vs forecast (guess?) argument and just mutters “lies” in response to the PM’s claims.

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

What the Federal Budget means for you

The US is no longer a model for democracy

How will the US election impact energy infrastructure?

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Australian house prices close in on world record

Sydney is set to become the world’s most expensive city for housing over the next 12 months, a new report shows. Our other major cities aren’t far behind unless there are major changes to improve housing affordability.

The case for the $3 million super tax

The Government's proposed tax has copped a lot of flack though I think it's a reasonable approach to improve the long-term sustainability of superannuation and the retirement income system. Here’s why.

7 examples of how the new super tax will be calculated

You've no doubt heard about Division 296. These case studies show what people at various levels above the $3 million threshold might need to pay the ATO, with examples ranging from under $500 to more than $35,000.

The revolt against Baby Boomer wealth

The $3m super tax could be put down to the Government needing money and the wealthy being easy targets. It’s deeper than that though and this looks at the factors behind the policy and why more taxes on the wealthy are coming.

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

The super tax and the defined benefits scandal

Australia's superannuation inequities date back to poor decisions made by Parliament two decades ago. If super for the wealthy needs resetting, so too does the defined benefits schemes for our public servants.

Latest Updates

Planning

Will young Australians be better off than their parents?

For much of Australia’s history, each new generation has been better off than the last: better jobs and incomes as well as improved living standards. A new report assesses whether this time may be different.

Superannuation

The rubbery numbers behind super tax concessions

In selling the super tax, Labor has repeated Treasury claims of there being $50 billion in super tax concessions annually, mostly flowing to high-income earners. This figure is vastly overstated.

Investment strategies

A steady road to getting rich

The latest lists of Australia’s wealthiest individuals show that while overall wealth has continued to rise, gains by individuals haven't been uniform. Many might have been better off adopting a simpler investment strategy.

Economy

Would a corporate tax cut boost productivity in Australia?

As inflation eases, the Albanese government is switching its focus to lifting Australia’s sluggish productivity. Can corporate tax cuts reboot growth - or are we chasing a theory that doesn’t quite work here?

Are V-shaped market recoveries becoming more frequent?

April’s sharp rebound may feel familiar, but are V-shaped recoveries really more common in the post-COVID world? A look at market history suggests otherwise and hints that a common bias might be skewing perceptions.

Investment strategies

Asset allocation in a world of riskier developed markets

Old distinctions between developed and emerging market bonds no longer hold true. At a time where true diversification matters more than ever, this has big ramifications for the way that portfolios should be constructed.

Investment strategies

Top 5 investment reads

As the July school holiday break nears, here are some investment classics to put onto your reading list. The books offer lessons in investment strategy, financial disasters, and mergers and acquisitions.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.