Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, unlike small businesses, big businesses like Coles, Woolworths and Qantas can cater in house, in their corporate boardrooms, and do so as a tax deduction. How much does this cost the budget?

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

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

Order! No, no. It's groundhog day. We're going to reset—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So it's a social justice issue?

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

I'm dealing with it. I'm resetting the rules yet again. Members on my right, I think my position is pretty clear after these years. Questions are going to be heard in silence. You might not like the content. I'm sure the opposition doesn't like some of the answers either. But we are going—

The Leader of the Opposition is going to cease interjecting. Out of courtesy for the shadow Treasurer, he'll begin his question again. And it's really simple for members on my right: if you interject, you won't hear the question. The shadow Treasurer has the call.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Treasurer, unlike small businesses, big businesses like Coles, Woolworths and Qantas can cater in house, in their corporate boardrooms, and do so as a tax deduction. How much does this cost the budget?

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order!

The member for Hume, we've asked the question.

Order! The member for Cooper will leave the chamber under 94(a).

The member for Cooper then left the chamber.

We are not having interjections before someone begins their answer—completely disrespectful. The Treasurer has the call.

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

I was sitting there hoping that they'd double down on this policy, and it turns out that they have, and I couldn't be happier about that, Mr Speaker, if I'm honest with you. There are two points about the shadow Treasurer's question. First of all, only the Liberal and National parties could see taxpayers and workers funding between $1.6 billion and $10 billion to shout their bosses lunch as an issue of fairness. Only those opposite could see that as an issue of social justice and an issue of fairness. The second point I would make is this—the nerve of these characters, on a day when they've been sprung not releasing the cost of their own policy, jumping up and asking about the costing of a policy which has been longstanding.

The reason that the shadow Treasurer is losing his cool again, just like he did when the good inflation numbers came out, is that—

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

The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order?

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's on relevance. The Treasurer was asked for a number—has he had it costed? If he doesn't, he should sit down.

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

The Leader of the House on the point of order?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question went to the capacity of a business to claim on lunches. That's the concept that the question went to, and that's exactly what the Treasurer is referring to. It can't be demanded that a question be answered only in a particular way; the minister simply has to be relevant to it.

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

The question was a tight question. It was about a number. I appreciate the shadow Treasurer would like an exact figure—would perhaps like a direct answer.

Order! The Leader of the Opposition yelling at me is not helping the situation. Under the standing orders, I can't make the Treasurer give the figure that you would like. What I can do is make sure he is being directly relevant—that is, not straying into opposition policy and not moving into alternative approaches, because he wasn't asked about those. I'll hear from the manager.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just for the avoidance of doubt, we don't necessarily demand a number, as you suggest. What we do ask is that the Treasurer is directly relevant to whether he has had it costed.

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order! The manager is entitled to state a point, and the leader is entitled to respond to it if he wishes. Okay. So we're all in agreeance, which is good. Thank you, Manager. We're just going to have to make sure the Treasurer is directly relevant to the question he was asked about, which means he can comment about aspects of the question, and, if he wishes to give the number, perhaps he shall do so. He has the call.

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

The only party in this parliament proposing to change the arrangements for tax breaks for long lunches is the opposition. That's why it is the costing before the parliament today, and the reason that we have highlighted the costings that those opposite failed to provide is, when they don't come clean on the costs, it means they will not come clean on the cuts. That is the point I'm making. We have chosen to support small businesses in a much more responsible way, and the way that we're—

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

Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition, on a further point of order?

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, you gave a very definite direction to the Treasurer. It was a tight question. It was asking about the existing policy and what the cost to the budget is of that policy which allows Qantas to have a boardroom lunch worth thousands of dollars and for that lunch to be deductible—a lunch that the Prime Minister or the Treasurer could attend or perhaps have in the past.

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

Order, resume your seat. The Leader of the Opposition is now abusing standing orders. It is not another opportunity, under the standing orders, to simply get up and make a statement. He knows that. It was a nice try, but he won't be doing that anymore during question time. Equally so, the Treasurer, if he's not going to be directly relevant, cannot talk about opposition policy. He needs to refer to the question he was asked, otherwise I'll sit him down. The Treasurer is in continuation for one minute 25 seconds.

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

The reason that number is not in the budget is we're not changing the arrangements. That's the point that I'm making. The only change that's being proposed is the change being proposed by those opposite. We are supporting small businesses in a more responsible way. We've helped with energy bills that they opposed, with an instant asset tax write-off that they tried to hold up in the Senate, with cybersecurity, with competition policy and in other ways.

I know that they are terribly embarrassed today because they couldn't hand in their homework. They either didn't know or wouldn't say how much their policy costs. We've done their homework for them. The policy that they're trying to inflict on the Australian people would have workers shout lunches for their bosses and would smash an up to $10 billion hole in the budget as a consequence.