Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I cannot. No. Imagine taking the theory to your bank manager and saying, 'Well, I will borrow a huge pile of money and I am going to buy a race car, but I do not really consider it a debt because in a number of years my child is going to make millions of dollars as a race car driver. So it does not sit as a debt on my ledger.' How do you reckon that would go down?

The important thing to remember is that, if it were not for the neat accounting trick of hiding stuff 'off budget,' there would be no real surplus.

The second thing that this bill does is to provide clear evidence of Labor's lack of understanding regarding its debt problems, and it highlights the need for greater due diligence in relation to government spending. Of the $3.1 billion being sought across the bill a full $1 billion is going to the department of climate change to provide cash payments to coal fired power stations to assist in transition to the carbon tax. I could go on about the carbon tax, but I will not because I do not want to get it confused with this appropriations bill. The carbon tax spending could not come at a worse time. It will exacerbate recent blowouts in the government's budget deficit estimates and net debt.

How do you think other countries—America and the European Union—got into trouble in the first place? There is a common thread that they all got themselves into. It was basically too much debt. There have been comments made in this chamber that our debt ratio is only eight per cent. It could be whatever figure you want. The theory is that debt is relevant to your capacity to repay. At the moment there is no capacity for this government to service that mere eight per cent. Testament to that are the structural deficits. The important thing about a surplus is that the money you make in the surplus can actually go to paying wealth debt. In 2008-09 there was $27 billion deficit. In the 2009-10 period there was $54 billion. In the 2010-11 period there was $47 billion. The government is $167 billion in deficit.

Last week the gross debt increased by $3 billion bringing the total market value of Australia's debt to $224 billion with the current debt ceiling being set at a face value of $250 billion. The government needs to commit to bringing any further debt limit increase to the parliament for frank and open debate. I do not think that pushing through appropriation bills for increases in the debt ceiling will be a practice that will be encouraged in the future. I mention this because, when it comes to hiding increases to the debt limit, this government has got form. Last year they snuck an increase to the debt ceiling into the middle of the budget appropriations, as I mentioned earlier, thereby preventing debate. I cannot imagine why they would be scared of this debate unless it is because they know that, when it comes to matters of money and matters of debt, they have no credibility.

When it comes to credibility, as leaders in this room, the Australian people need to believe what we say. We continually erode the Australian public's capacity to have faith in politicians when we have comments from the Treasurer of our nation talking before the election about commitment to the carbon tax. On 12 August on the 7.30 Report the Deputy Prime Minister Wayne Swan was asked about the issue of carbon tax and his response was:

We have made our position very clear. We have ruled it out.

They said one thing and did another thing. It comes back to credibility. On 15 August on Meet the Press on Channel 10 the journalist asked Wayne Swan:

Can you tell us exactly when Labor will apply a price to carbon?

Wayne Swan's response was:

Well, certainly what we rejected is this hysterical allegation somehow that we are moving towards a carbon tax ... we certainly reject that.

You cannot interpret that any other way. Those comments affect the government's credibility.

See this speech in context