Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Hansard source

As my colleague the member for Mackellar has raised it would be beneficial, Mr Deputy Speaker, if we were to receive some detailed responses. We have lots of issues that we would like to go through. Whilst the minister has been giving us lots of wonderful detail about the budget papers, most of it I have read already. Perhaps we can take some of that material as read.

Much was made ahead of the budget—especially by the minister the minister is representing, by the Treasurer and by the Prime Minister—about the toughness of this budget. In that regard I would like to refer the minister to the table on page 10-6 of Budget Paper No. 1. I would be grateful if the minister could explain why government spending, as a percentage of GDP, has been higher in every year of office of this government. The forward estimates in the budget papers show spending in the last year of the Howard government at 22.9 per cent of GDP and since that time, and all the way through to 2014-15, the best that happens is 23.5 per cent. There is a consistent pattern of a government that is claiming to bring down an extraordinarily tough budget, that is going to take pressure off small and medium business who are seeking finance, continuing to borrow $135 million every day and putting enormous pressure on others looking for finance. They are adding to interest rates, which is adding to exchange rate pressures and adding to the cost of taking out mortgages and getting finance.

On all fronts the spending of this government is critical to economic outcomes and the cost of living pressures faced by households and the pressures faced by businesses, and yet the government, whilst talking about a tough budget, has laid out a four-year program which is still a country mile from spending levels, as a percentage of GDP, under the previous government. I would like to know why there has not been any effort to keep spending as a percentage of GDP below 2007-08 levels, as is the case with taxation receipts. The government has made a particular point about not going higher with taxation receipts than the previous government but, when it comes to spending, it sees no reason to make the same provision. This seems to be a significant inconsistency and I would appreciate an explanation for that.

From the point of view of a tough budget and the difficulty being faced by many in the economy and the uncertainty that currently exists, the reason for that uncertainty is that people have gone from minus one per cent savings to 11½ per cent, so something close to $70 billion has not been spent this year that would have been spent in a typical year. It is no wonder the retail sector is on its knees. That is a function of uncertainty. People are anxious about what might lie ahead. Do we have some sort of satisfactory protection or resilience against future economic shocks? The structural deficit within the budget is a critical factor. Why has the government not featured the structural deficit estimates over future years? If any of the assumptions for receipts or expenditure are out, the structural deficit could cause enormous problems and increase anxiety in the community. Why, as distinct from 2009-10 when they were featured strongly, has the government not this year featured the structural deficit figures? (Time expired)

See this speech in context