JIM CHALMERS:
Okay, thanks very much, everyone. I encourage you to think about this Budget in five parts. First part, the cost‑of‑living relief. Secondly, Medicare and the care economy. Thirdly, inclusion and equality, particularly for women and disadvantaged communities. Fourthly, the growth that we will get from the industrial opportunities from energy, technology and small business. And then, lastly, the responsible economic management, which is delivering the biggest ever forecast improvement in a Budget in dollar terms.
So, consider it this way. The first Budget in October was about bedding down our commitments and ensuring our fiscal and economic strategy aligned with the conditions that we faced. It made a good start on setting us up for the future and I'm proud of what we did in that first Budget. This second Budget has been a much harder task, with a more complex combination of challenges and that has required a series of finer balances to be struck. For example, unlike in October, we're on the other side of the peak in inflation but it's still too high. At the same time, we face a global economy that is slowing and an outlook that is more uncertain with more downside risks. And they're detailed in the Budget.
Now, this, along with the compounding cost‑of‑living pressures from high inflation and higher interest rates, are straining household budgets and they're slowing our own economy as well. And while our Budget is benefiting from a resilient labour market, the beginnings of wages growth and high commodity prices, it's still burdened by persistent structural pressures as well. So, the job that we had in this Budget and what Katy and I and the ERC colleagues grappled with was how to strike that fine balance between these complex and sometimes competing forces and to deliver on our priorities at the same time. To ease cost‑of‑living pressures in a meaningful and targeted way, not add to them. To make the investments that we need to make today, to set ourselves up for the future. Finding room to secure the vital services that Australians rely on and broadening opportunity across our country. All while continuing our strategy of responsibly managing the Budget in a restrained way to keep pressure off inflation and make our public finances stronger and more sustainable in the process.
Now, ultimately, all of this is about addressing the immediate challenges that we face together at the same time as we set the country up for future success as well. Now, our economy, as you know from the Budget papers, is expected to slow substantially next year due to global pressures and higher interest rates. But Australia is still expected to outperform the major advanced economies, which is what that simple chart shows you there, Australia versus the major advanced economies. Our real GDP growth is expected to be one and a half per cent in 2023-24. And while inflation's peaked, it's still expected to remain higher than we'd like, for longer than we'd like. And that's why our policies in this Budget have been carefully calibrated to alleviate cost‑of‑living pressures, not add to them. And it's why providing responsible, targeted relief is really the number one priority in our Budget.
Our cost-of-living policies are directly reducing price pressures in the economy by three quarters of a percentage point in 23-24, and they're not expected to add to broader inflationary pressures in the economy. Our $14.6 billion cost‑of‑living relief package targets those areas where price pressures have been the most acute in our economy. Help with energy bills, reducing out of pocket health costs and increasing Commonwealth Rent Assistance as well. So, we've prioritised those most in need, including by expanding the single Parenting Payment and increasing the base rate of JobSeeker as well. And on top of this, as you know, we're funding a 15 per cent pay rise for our aged care workers.
And we've prioritised what's affordable and we've tried to support the most vulnerable people, but there is also a lot in this Budget for middle Australia more broadly. A higher bulk billing incentive so more Australians can access free consultations from their GP is a really central component of what's new about this Budget, tonight, the tripling of the bulk-billing incentive for millions of Australians. We're cutting the costs of medicines, we've got investments to unlock, low interest loans to finance, energy saving home upgrades, and of course, we've got cheaper childcare starting on the first of July as well. So, we're targeting the most vulnerable at the same time as we are providing cost-of-living help for middle Australia more broadly.
I won't run through all the other initiatives in the Budget, but I just wanted to pull out and focus on just a few of them. That historic investment in Medicare of $5.7 billion to make it easier and cheaper to see a doctor. The most important new part of that is the $3.5 billion investment which will support 11.6 million Australians to access a GP without out‑of‑pocket costs. That really is one of the most important centrepieces of the Budget tonight, the bulk billing incentive. Another central plank of the Budget with some new components that you haven't read about before, is how we grab and seize the industrial and economic opportunities which come from the net zero transformation in our economy. This is the central part of what we're proposing in this Budget to grow the economy the right way to lay the foundations for future growth. The intersection of industry and energy and technology and small business is where we see the lion's share of opportunity here and the Budget reflects that as well.
There's $4 billion in new investments in our potential as a renewable energy superpower. That takes the total investment in this area to $40 billion in these related areas. And this includes $2 billion for Hydrogen Headstart, which is a new programme to help Australia become a world leader in hydrogen production. And there's a whole range of other measures as well, including a $400 million industry growth program, which is all about value adding industries, people skills, technology, right across the board, investing in the foundations of growth.
Now, obviously, a core part of our economic strategy is to ensure our finances remain strong and sustainable, that we make them more sustainable over time. And we've made a heap of progress in this Budget on this front, and this will help buffer us against what's coming at us from around the world. It means that we avoid billions of dollars extra on interest costs on debt, and it means that we have more scope to fund the services and programs that Australians need and deserve. We started the Budget repair task in October and we've built on it further, substantially, in this Budget. It's all about spending, restraint, finding savings and modest and meaningful tax changes as well. We're returning 82 per cent of the upward revision to revenue in this Budget and it was 92 in the last Budget. 87 over two Budgets. That is historic, that is a huge driver of the improvement that you're seeing in the Budget. We wouldn't be within a cooee of forecasting a surplus in 22-23 were it not for the way that we have, in a disciplined way, banked so much of the upward revision to revenue. $17.8 billion in savings, $40 billion over two Budgets. We've limited real growth in spending to an average of 0.6 per cent across five years. And this combination of repair and restraint is why we are now forecasting that small surplus of $4.2 billion in 22-23, smaller deficits after that, and much less debt as well compared to the October Budget. The forecast cumulative improvement in the fiscal position in this Budget is the biggest on record in dollar terms, as I said. And if the forecast surplus this year eventuates, it will be the first in 15 years.
Now, as you can see from this chart, we are forecasting a return to surplus ahead of our peers, which is with lower debt and a stronger fiscal position as well. So, the one on the right is the Budget balance, which shows us with a small surplus compared to those big deficits among the major advanced economies. The one on the left is gross debt and it shows again that our gross debt is much less than the major advanced economies. And this outcome wouldn't have been possible without our decision to return most of the upward revisions to revenue.
So, the final set of charts that I wanted to show you was - this one here is the difference between what the interest payments would be and what the gross debt would be. The red line is if we didn't return these tax upgrades, revenue upgrades. The blue line is this Budget. And the reason I wanted to set it out like that is because if I add another line, which is the performance of our predecessors only banking 40 per cent of the upward revision to revenue, then you get those middle lines there. And that shows the difference between our approach, responsible approach to the Budget, particularly upward revisions to revenue, versus if we had not done that, or versus if we had only returned as much as our predecessors. If we'd spent all the upgrades, our deficits and our debt would be much higher, $300 billion higher by the end of the medium term if we'd spend it all. And that would add $83 billion to the public interest bill. Instead, we've followed a different path to our predecessors and returned a substantial chunk.
So, there are still obviously genuine challenges and persistent pressures on the Budget and in our economy as well. But our strategy is putting public finances on a much more sustainable footing over the medium term. We're making meaningful progress in this Budget, particularly when it comes to the two fastest areas of government spending, which is interest on debt and the NDIS. And we're putting in place some modest but meaningful changes in tax as well that make our system more sustainable. So, the Budget's been all about getting the balance right between doing what we can for people doing it tough, and keeping pressure off inflation, dealing with our immediate challenges at the same time as we lay the foundations for future growth and a fairer society as well, and creating more opportunities for more people. Katy Gallagher has been absolutely central to all of these deliberations and decisions. I'll throw to Katy now and then happy to take your questions.
KATY GALLAGHER:
Thanks very much, Jim. Well, this Budget had to do a number of things from the beginning, and the final document really is the culmination of hundreds, if not thousands, of individual decisions that have been taken over many months. This Budget is responsible, it's balanced, it delivers on our commitments, it deals with the pressures coming towards us and some that we've inherited, and it puts the Budget on a more sustainable footing going forward. We've taken decisions in this Budget to find sensible savings where we can, at the same time as deal with the very significant problems we inherited from the former government's approach to budgeting. Which meant that we had to find an additional 11.6 billion in the last two Budgets in October and in May. And we started that work in October. Unfortunately, it's continued into May, but we found room for those important services that weren't funded.
We've also had to rebuild and reshape the public service so that it can do the things that it needs to do. And in some cases, that means keeping the doors open and the lights on. In others, it's resources to do things like processing visas, passports, environmental approvals, veterans support, support for people with a disability, those services that people in Australia rely on but were seriously underinvested and had an impact on people's lives from that underinvestment.
In terms of savings in October, you'd remember we found $22 billion in savings and reprioritisations. We found an additional 17.8 billion in this Budget. That's almost $40 billion in under 12 months compared with the last Morrison Budget, which had zero savings in the March Budget. And I think that that shows you how seriously we've taken our fiscal discipline, our approach to budgeting where we can, to reprioritise money to new pressures, where that's agreed without just simply adding to new spending. I think this is a responsible approach and it will help set the Budget up on a more sustainable footing going forward. It's a process that we will continue in future Budgets, as we know, the work on Budget repair hasn't finished.
I'd just like to make a few comments quickly on the Women's Budget Statement and that's an important document that is in your Budget books. But I have no doubt that the investments in this Budget will change the lives of thousands of Australian women. As we've been putting this Budget together I've gone back and had a look at the first Women's Budget Statement, which unfortunately was typed out in very small font, but it raises a lot of the issues that Australian women are still experiencing now. When you go back to 1984 and 1985, we were talking about the barriers affecting women when it came to caring responsibilities, when it came to single parents, when it came to aged care provision, when it came to domestic violence and safety for women. That was all there in 1984. I think that’s what you'll see in this Budget, and you saw it starting in the October Budget with our investments in extending PPL and our investments in child care to support women's economic equality and opportunity. You'll see that continue in this Budget and I think you'll find a hard pressed to go back and find a Budget that tries to do more to support Australian women so that's changes to the Parenting Payment, abolishing the ParentsNext program, fully funding 15 per cent for aged care workforce, of which 90 per cent of that workforce are women undervalued and underpaid for a long time. That is fixed in this Budget by lowering the JobSeeker rate from the higher rate from 60 to 55, an extra $589 million to support the National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children. There's investments in health and well-being. There's also important investments in Australia's skills guarantee to put some targets around some of those male-dominated trades areas to ensure that we are supporting women where we can, where we're procuring services to make sure women are getting a fair crack of those opportunities as well. But this is an important Budget for women and I just wanted to make a few remarks on that today.
JOURNALIST:
The Budget is completely silent on the stage three tax cuts. The public servants told us in the lockup that they weren't allowed to tell us what the new revised forecasts are. Why is it that they’re the ‘Voldemort of the Budget’? Why are there no references to the tables of the generous tax cuts that you'll be offering not too long from now? And what is the revised forecast of how much these will cost over the next four years and in 2024 when they begin?
CHALMERS:
Well, the way we've approached this in the Budget has been entirely consistent with standard Budget practice. And because they were legislated some time ago and because the government's position hasn't changed on them, they wouldn't ordinarily be itemised like a new spending initiative would be. The four-year cost, the forward estimate cost of the stage three tax cuts is bigger because there's an additional year in the forecast, I think in the order, last time I asked, of about 69 billion over the course of the forward estimates. But there's a very - the way that we have accounted for the changes in the Budget is entirely consistent with how it's always done. It's an old decision legislated some time ago. There hasn't been a change to our position and that's why it's not in there. But it's about 69 over the forwards.
JOURNALIST:
[inaudible] first year of operation.
CHALMERS:
I don't have that number on me. It's 69 in the forwards. The last time I asked.
JOURNALIST:
Treasurer, a couple of things. Your documents say this Budget is actually deflationary. Can you explain to us how you get to that statement? And secondly, everywhere you talk about savings, you also talk about all reprioritisation. The Minister just did then. What is the net figure for savings in dollar terms?
CHALMERS:
Well, first of all, on the impact on inflation in the Budget. This Budget has been carefully designed and calibrated to take the pressures off the cost of living rather than add to inflation in our economy. And if you look at, for example, the impact of our energy policy, the combination of the caps and the energy bill relief, the Budget papers say that that's expected to take about three quarters of a percentage point off the CPI forecast next year. And because our policies are responsible and targeted and spread across payments or bills and over a number of years in a way that it doesn't hit the economy all at once, the pretty clear advice from the Treasury is that the other initiatives don't add to inflation in our economy.
The other important thing to remember is we've very deliberately and very carefully tried to direct the cost-of-living assistance in the Budget to the areas where the pressures are most acute. Rents, I mentioned, energy, I mentioned, out of pocket health costs. Very deliberate. When you can't throw the kitchen sink at some of these cost-of-living pressures, you want to be really careful about it, really targeted about it. You want to spread it out over a period of time so you're not making these cost-of-living pressures worse. We're really confident that we haven't done that. We're very confident we haven't made the cost-of-living pressures worse, we've actually alleviated them where they make the most difference, including where the inflationary challenge is the most acute.
Another example before I go to Paul, is if you think about where the inflation challenge is at its peak, 2023 was the peak of inflation, in terms of years of inflation. The Budget in 2022-23 is contractionary compared to the year before. And again, what we've tried to do is take the most pressure off inflation when inflation is most acute, it goes down towards the target band over time in the forward estimates. But we've tried to do the most heavy lifting where inflation is the most problematic. Paul?
JOURNALIST:
[inaudible], do you have a net savings figure in dollar terms?
CHALMERS:
We've got a gross savings figure of 17.8, 40 over two Budgets. I can get you a net figure.
JOURNALIST:
[inaudible] that reprioritisation, so, it isn't clear -
CHALMERS:
Well, let me give you an example. For example, a big subject of discussion here in this building has been the Defence Program, the Defence Strategic Review and the AUKUS deal. And that has required $7.8 billion of Defence reprioritisation. And that's an example of where when you've got a constrained Budget and you're trying to put the Budget on a much more sustainable footing, there are areas, whether it's defence or health or other areas, where it makes a lot of sense to try and get more value for money and fund our priorities and that requires us to take money that might be spent in one area and spend it in another, often in the same portfolio.
JOURNALIST:
Treasurer, towards the end of your speech, you outlined that more fiscal repair is needed. It's the challenge ahead. When you have a look at the estimates for the deficit in 24-25, it's a bigger deficit, which more than suggests that to pay for the stage three tax cuts, you're going to have to borrow more money. So, this is becoming not silly, it's becoming absurd from a fiscal point of view, isn't it?
CHALMERS:
Well, I think it's been the case for some time that when you're running a deficit and you've got to accommodate these tax cuts, that at least in the current forecast, it would be the situation as you describe it. And our job is to try and get the Budget on the most sustainable footing that we can. Those deficits that you refer to are much smaller than what they were expected to be last year. And that, I think, is a demonstration of the disciplined and responsible and restrained way that we've gone about saving and spending and modest but meaningful tax changes. We're making really good progress on the Budget, but nobody here, not Katy or I or anyone in the Cabinet, pretends that it is mission accomplished when it comes to putting the Budget on a much more sustainable footing. But the progress that we've made in two Budgets has been historic. We're proud of that because it means we avoid more debt. We avoid more interest costs on that debt.
JOURNALIST:
What is the basis for the $40 a fortnight figure for the JobSeeker increase and of 55 as the threshold for larger payments for the long-term unemployed? Is there any rationale for that beyond what wouldn't blow the surplus?
CHALMERS:
We're trying to work out a way that we can provide cost-of-living relief for the most vulnerable people, the people doing it toughest in a way that doesn't blow the Budget. And I think we've struck a good balance here. And when you look beyond just the base rate increase in JobSeeker, as important as that is, but some people will be receiving that and Commonwealth Rent Assistance, perhaps the energy bill relief as well. And so I'd encourage you to look right across the cost-of-living package. And we've done what we can. We've genuinely put in our best effort to give people the support that they need, but try and do it in a targeted and responsible way, a way that doesn't blow the Budget.
JOURNALIST:
Just on the 3.5 billion for Medicare reform. You said just then that this was something potentially for middle Australia, but at least from reading the Budget papers, it says this funding will triple the bulk billing incentive benefits for consultations for Commonwealth concession card holders and patients under the age of 16. So, is this just for concession card holders or for people who are on low incomes who might not have a concession?
CHALMERS:
It's for 11.6 million Australians and the benefit is bigger in the bush than it is in the city. It triples the bulk billing incentive. I'm going to ask Katy to add to that from a health point of view in a moment. But Paul also asked me about the over 55s. My apologies, Paul. What we've done here is we've taken the existing threshold for people who get a bit more help after nine months of waiting, who are currently over 60, in recognition that it's harder to get back into the workforce when you're at that end of your working life. And so, consistent with the recommendations of the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce that has reported to Katy, the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee that's reported to Amanda Rishworth and I, we think it's appropriate to bring that threshold down to 55. So, that the same arrangements that used to apply from 60 to 67 now apply from 55 to 67 in recognition of that cohort. And also, because increasingly we're worried about women over 55, I'm going to throw to Katy, who’ll want to add on that and also might want to say something more on health.
GALLAGHER:
Yes. So, that is an issue that's come up certainly from women’s stakeholders around the fastest growing group in homelessness services. There's a whole range of reasons why women over the age of 55 are particularly vulnerable. And so this gives them just a bit more assistance as they're making decisions about their lives.
On the Medicare, so, you’ve got to see the Medicare package in its entirety. So, it's about $5.7 billion going into Medicare, of which the bulk billing incentive is the centrepiece or the major part of that. That does target children under the age of 16. So, for parents with children under the age of 16, that's an important cost. Anyone who's had kids and had to take them to the doctors knows that. And often when one kid gets sick, the rest go down as well. So, really, that's tripling that incentive. As Jim said, it's higher in regional areas than in the city. But we think it’ll importantly give the support to general practice to continue bulk billing, because that's what we've seen with the rates starting to decline because of the pressures on general practice in a whole range of areas. But accompanying that is our extra investment in the Medicare urgent care clinics. Again, that's really important for every Australian that we get those up and running and the states are very positive about those. Some of the chronic disease management, again, that applies across the board to provide assistance to [inaudible] through the EDs, taking some pressure off the hospital. So, you've got to see that Medicare package in its entirety, I think, but it's really targeted to support general practice with what they've been telling us are they really difficult areas.
JOURNALIST:
We know Australia has a skilled workers shortage, but this Budget increases visa application charges on top of indexation already. How do you justify that for people who want to come here?
CHALMERS:
Well, because we're putting a huge effort into working our way through the visa backlog and we need to resource that effort.
JOURNALIST:
Look, just in terms of the Central Australia funding, about 100 million of it's being kept in the contingency reserve. Given the urgency with which that was announced and the fact it's been a few months now that you've had to consult with community and Aboriginal organisations, what's the justification there? Are you waiting for The Voice?
GALLAGHER:
No, that's really just to continue those consultations. So, you can see there's a number within that package. There's the original 48 million itemised and then there's the additional money that went in. Some of that's been able to be landed about what services and supports need to go in Central Australia, but some of it hasn't. Certainly, the Minister for Indigenous Australians has been very clear, as has the community of Central Australia, about the desire to co-design and make sure we target those supports where they're needed the most. We've put it so it's there in the contingency reserve. As those decisions are taken, we will be able to ensure that that money flows.
JOURNALIST:
Treasurer, you stood here in October and said that you were starting a difficult conversation, you were going to make difficult decisions. That movement had to come on the revenue side. Today, you're telling us there's only very modest improvements on the -
CHALMERS:
You've only partly quoted me there, Katina. Modest but meaningful.
JOURNALIST:
When are we having that difficult conversation? It seems to have ended before it started.
CHALMERS:
Well, it felt like a pretty serious conversation when I was changing the tax breaks on superannuation, it felt like a pretty serious conversation when we're changing the arrangements for the PRRT and there are a number of other tax measures in there - multinationals, the health policy around the tax on cigarettes and the compliance measures. There's five quite substantial tax changes in there that will make a modest but meaningful change to the sustainability of the Budget. And it's part of, really, the three ways we go about this task in October that you referenced and in May, and I suspect when we're back here in May next year: it's a combination of restraint, it's a combination of savings and they're difficult too. I mean, if you sit around the Cabinet table at the ERC, there's a lot of difficult decisions involved in that $17.8 billion in savings, let me tell you, and then tax similarly.
So, I'm actually really quite encouraged by the willingness of the Australian community to engage in a big conversation about how do we get the Budget in much better nick, not as an end in itself, but as the foundation upon which we then do what we need to do for people doing it tough, to invest in their future, to broaden and extend opportunities in our society. Katy and I and the whole cabinet, the task that we're engaged in is not the task of one Budget or even two Budgets, or hopefully not just one parliamentary term. It's to get the Budget on a more sustainable footing so that we can do the things that we want to do for this country and its people.
JOURNALIST:
In continuation of that, is it essentially a reality that you flash back to surplus and we fall back to deficit? And that's despite the medium-term consolidations, like the NDIS, reining that in and the super taxes and all those things. Is it just a reality that you're going to have to take an agenda to the next election on tax and revenue to permanently sort of close that gap or get us back to surplus full time?
CHALMERS:
Well, I'm here to hand down a Budget with my mate here, not to announce our election policies. But the broader point about ‘is there more work that we need to do on the structural position?’ Of course there is, and that's the point I'm making to Katina. But we have made really quite remarkable progress in two Budgets, more than I think a lot of people expected that we could do in two Budgets. We have these characters rolling around this building pretending that it's easy to get to this forecast Budget position. I don't remember a lot of them over the last 15 years. And that's a consequence of a series of difficult decisions and we'll need to take difficult decisions in the future as well. But let's not announce our election policies now. Let's hand down a Budget that I'm proud of.
JOURNALIST:
Thanks, Treasurer. Power bills and other living costs are still going to hurt many Australians who won't qualify for some of the direct assistance measures you've announced today. The Budget predicts a dramatic slowing of household consumption. So, we know those households are going to have less money to spend, they're not going to get those direct assistances. Is it the case that that cohort just has to grin and bear it in order for the government to get through this inflationary period?
CHALMERS:
No, I don't see it that way. I mean, I agree with you that one of the big drivers of the slowing in our economy is a slowing in consumption. And that is particularly, I think, a consequence of a series of interest rate rises that began before the election and continued after, but also the slowdown in the global economy impacts on our forecasts more broadly as well.
But I respectfully don't agree with the sense that there is swathes of middle Australia who are missing out here. If you go through our agenda, whether it's wages, whether it's the bulk billing incentive, whether it's cheaper medicines for 6 million people, all the broader investments in Medicare, whether it's the impact of the price caps which are driving a huge improvement in the forecast increases in electricity prices, whether it's the household energy upgrades funds, whether it is the TAFE and training package, whether it's the early childhood education package which will be a game changer for middle Australia and for working mums and dads in particular, people with little kids. You go right across our agenda and there's a lot in there for middle Australia. And we have deliberately said that the priority when it comes to JobSeeker base rate, Commonwealth Rent Assistance and some of these other initiatives is about helping people who are most vulnerable, who are doing it the toughest. That doesn't mean that middle Australia is missing out. On the contrary, this is a government very, very focused on the prospects of middle Australia, but also the ability to hook up people who are doing it tough with the opportunities that a good, strong, growing economy creates, including in the labour market. These are our objectives and I think the Budget is showing that we're satisfying a number of those objectives. We've got two more there and there.
JOURNALIST:
Just on the Commonwealth Rental Assistance.
CHALMERS:
Yes.
JOURNALIST:
Can you really say 15 per cent is a meaningful change when a lot of advocates were calling for 40-50 per cent and just with that, what stops landlords or real estate agencies being able to increase their rents on top of that? I mean, would it not have been better to, alongside that, put some sort of cap on how much they can increase rents?
CHALMERS:
Well, first of all, a lot of the measures in the rental market are the domain of the states. But I think Anthony Albanese, to his great credit, has been showing some leadership at National Cabinet when it comes to tenants, the rights of tenants, including in some of these areas. But we decided that we wanted to give the biggest increase to Commonwealth Rent Assistance for decades. But we understand that there will be groups calling for more, and the same with the JobSeeker base rate. We understand that we're realistic about that. Some people would rather we do nothing. Some people would rather that we provide even more assistance. We've tried to strike the right balance of all of these competing pressures. But Commonwealth Rent Assistance, the increase in the Budget is there deliberately. And that's because we recognise that rents are a big part of cost living pressures that a lot of people face. Now, when it comes to the flow on impact in the market, we have low vacancy rates and we have high rents for a whole bunch of reasons that don't include that Commonwealth Rent Assistance is too generous. We’ve got a supply problem. That's why it beggars belief that the Parliament is not currently supporting building tens of thousands more homes. We've got a problem here when it comes to housing supply. That's why we've got the Housing Accord, new measures in here, tax breaks for build to rent. All of that is because the primary thing we need to do in the rental market is build more supply. In addition to that, we've got this increase in the Commonwealth Rent Assistance, which we're very proud of.
JOURNALIST:
Just wanted to ask a follow up question on the bulk billing incentives. Do you have a forecast of by how much the increased incentives will improve bulk billing rates by, especially without a substantial across the board increase to Medicare rebates? Just Minister Gallagher, you mentioned earlier that there is a modest across the board increase to those rebates. Is that just funding the small increase that comes about because of indexation, or is that in addition to that?
GALLAGHER:
Well, that's a new indexation method that we've put in place, which is also part a of cost-of-living initiative, which goes more broadly than MBS. MBS gets about $1.5 billion in those additional indexation payments, which would be over and above what people were expecting because we've changed the indexation formula, which I'm happy to talk to you through offline, but unless everyone's really dying to understand about the change to indexation arrangements, which is important, but of particular interest to some. Sorry, your question on the Medicare was right, how would it do it? Well, the issue is the Commonwealth can't dictate to GPs that they need to bulk bill right? That's a decision that general practitioners make for themselves. The area of influence we have is to ensure or to incentivise that practice or that doctor to bulk bill. And I would say tripling the bulk billing incentive, the most significant increase to the bulk billing incentive in recent times is solely for that purpose. We want to make sure that GPs make that decision to bulk bill, that it's targeted to those areas, kids under 16, pensioners, concession card holders. But ultimately, it's a decision for general practice. They've told us that this is what they needed and we've delivered on with this very important investment.
CHALMERS:
Thanks very much.
GALLAGHER:
Thank you.