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 It surely is outdated for comparison purposes.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.

 

  •   23 April 2025
  • 3
  •      
  •   
3 Comments
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.

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.

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!

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

What the Federal Budget means for you

No one holds the government to account on spending

The US is no longer a model for democracy

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Retirement income expectations hit new highs

Younger Australians think they’ll need $100k a year in retirement - nearly double what current retirees spend. Expectations are rising fast, but are they realistic or just another case of lifestyle inflation?

Four best-ever charts for every adviser and investor

In any year since 1875, if you'd invested in the ASX, turned away and come back eight years later, your average return would be 120% with no negative periods. It's just one of the must-have stats that all investors should know.

Why super returns may be heading lower

Five mega trends point to risks of a more inflation prone and lower growth environment. This, along with rich market valuations, should constrain medium term superannuation returns to around 5% per annum.

Preparing for aged care

Whether for yourself or a family member, it’s never too early to start thinking about aged care. This looks at the best ways to plan ahead, as well as the changes coming to aged care from November 1 this year.

Our experts on Jim Chalmers' super tax backdown

Labor has caved to pressure on key parts of the Division 296 tax, though also added some important nuances. Here are six experts’ views on the changes and what they mean for you.        

Why I dislike dividend stocks

If you need income then buying dividend stocks makes perfect sense. But if you don’t then it makes little sense because it’s likely to limit building real wealth. Here’s what you should do instead.

Latest Updates

Investment strategies

LICs vs ETFs – which perform best?

With investor sentiment shifting and ETFs surging ahead, we pit Australia’s biggest LICs against their ETF rivals to see which delivers better returns over the short and long term. The results are revealing.

Retirement

The growing debt burden of retiring Australians

More Australians are retiring with larger mortgages and less super. This paper explores how unlocking housing wealth can help ease the nation’s growing retirement cashflow crunch.

The ASX is full of broken blue chips

Investing in the ASX 20 or 200 requires vigilance. Blue chips aren’t immune to failure, and the old belief that you can simply hold them forever is outdated. 

Shares

Buying Guzman Y Gomez, and not just for the burritos

Adding high-quality compounders at attractive valuations is difficult in an efficient market. However, during the volatile FY25 reporting season, an opportunity arose to increase a position in Mexican fast-food chain GYG.

Investment strategies

Factor investing and how to use ETFs to your advantage

Factor-based ETFs are bridging the gap between active and passive investing, giving investors low-cost access to proven drivers of long-term returns such as quality, value, momentum and dividend yield. 

Strategy

Engineers vs lawyers: the US-China divide that will shape this century

In Breakneck, Dan Wang contrasts China’s “engineering state” with America’s “lawyerly society,” showing how these mindsets drive innovation, dysfunction, and reshape global power amid rising rivalry. 

Retirement

18 rules for ageing well

The rules to age successfully include, 'the unexamined life lasts longer', 'change no more than one-eighth of your life at a time', 'nobody is thinking about you', and 'pursue virtue but don’t sweat it'.

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.