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

My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, a large company can cater for a lunch with food and alcohol worth thousands of dollars in its boardroom and can claim that cost as a tax deduction. What is the cost of this tax policy to the budget?

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

Order! The member for Spence is warned.

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

Their policy for lower wages for workers and longer lunches for bosses is a matter of fairness, but not the way that they think it is. If the member for Hume wants to be the Treasurer of this country, he really should know that the numbers that he is asking for are not itemised in the budget. That's because they are part of the tax base, and we're not proposing to change it. The only party in here proposing to make it easier for bosses to claim long lunches paid for by workers and taxpayers are those opposite. They are the only ones proposing to change these arrangements. I can hear him chirping away. He hasn't been this unhappy since inflation came in at the lower end of the RBA target band.

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

Order. The Treasurer will pause. The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order?

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

I seek your ruling in relation to relevance and whether the Treasurer is relevant to the tight question that he was asked. The fact is that big businesses can get in-house catering for thousands—

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

Yes, I understand the point, but it's not a time to give your comments about what you think he should be answering. You've raised the point of order, and you've discussed it on relevance. I understand that you're entitled to under the standing orders. No member can then just say, 'What I think it should be,' or 'What he should be doing'—it doesn't work that way. On a point of order?

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

On the point of order: as I said, Mr Speaker, I'm asking for your ruling in relation to whether the Treasurer is relevant to this very tight question. It goes to a measure which is in the budget. It's government policy for these big businesses to have tax deductions for lunches. How much does it cost Australian workers and taxpayers? It's a reasonable question that should be answered.

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

I can see this is a point of concern. The Treasurer was asked, 'What is the figure; what is the cost?' and the Leader of the Opposition is desperate to have that—

If you stop talking over me, I'll deal with your point of order! The Treasurer has said—and I've listened carefully to his answer—that it's not a costed figure because it's not in the budget. That's his answer. You've asked a question, 'What is the figure,' and he's answering that, and he's saying why it's not in the budget. So he is being directly relevant. We're just going to make sure he's being directly relevant. And it is hard for me because I'd like him to give a figure. I'd like a yes or no answer. It would make my job a lot easier. But that's not what's in the standing orders. We've all got to operate together under the standing orders—to respect the standing orders. I'm asking ministers to respect the standing orders, and I'm asking opposition members to respect the standing orders.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker; I appreciate that. I can understand why they don't want to talk about the costings of their own policy. From our point of view, we have not changed the policy. That's why there's not a costing of a new measure in the budget, and that's what makes the situation they're asking me about very different to the mess that the member for Hume has made of this costing. We tried to warn the Leader of the Opposition that, if he put this bloke in charge of the costings, it would go badly. Turns out it did.