David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to be able to contribute to this matter of public importance. I will restate the subject of it, because it may not have been possible to glean that from the member for North Sydney's contribution. The topic for discussion is:

The failure of the Government to deliver an economic and fiscal plan to return the Budget to surplus in its 2012-13 MYEFO statement.

We heard from the member for North Sydney a range of criticisms about the timing of the mid-year economic statement. I think it is worth putting a few facts on the record. I hope that the weight of facts can overpower the sheer force of hot air that we have heard from the other side. I will ensure that this debate is graced with at least some facts.

In terms of the question of timing, the absolute hypocrisy of the member for North Sydney may have dawned on one or two members in this chamber. The last time I debated him in a matter of public importance, in the last sitting week, the topic was that the government should urgently update its forecasts. That was just a few weeks ago. It was such a significant matter—he should go back and review the videotape. Obviously on that occasion he strayed as far away from the topic as he has today. He came into this place and said, 'The government needs to urgently update its figures.' Guess what—we did. It is called the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. We handed that down just over a week ago.

The member for North Sydney says, 'The government rushed in and released it earlier than we would've expected.' That statement might have an ounce of credibility if this was not the same bloke who last year ran around the country saying the government released it too late. On that occasion we released it on 29 November, and his principal criticism was, 'You can't go and release the mid-year statement when there are virtually no sitting weeks of parliament left, because we need to make sure this plan of yours is subject to some parliamentary scrutiny.' Hello! This is the second last sitting week of the year. If this is too early, the member for North Sydney needs to tell us exactly when he thinks is an appropriate time to hand down the mid-year economic statement.

When the member for North Sydney was in government and he and his colleagues introduced the Charter of Budget Honesty, they set out the requirements for the mid-year statement. This mid-year statement complies with the Charter of Budget Honesty. We did not hear any reference to the Charter of Budget Honesty from the member for North Sydney in his contribution because not only did he fail to comply with the requirements of the Charter of Budget Honesty at the last election but he has absolutely no intention of doing so at the next election.

We all recall the $11 billion black hole at the last election. His policies were costed by people he called his mates—he said he got mates rates. Whatever he got, he either really got his money's worth or he got completely ripped off, depending on what he was really trying to do. The people that costed and audited his policies—he said that they audited them—were found to have an $11 billion black hole. The accounting firm were reprimanded by the professional body and the member for North Sydney, the member for Goldstein and the Leader of the Opposition were exposed for having gone to the election with a shonky set of costings. They thought they were going to slide through. But what happened? No-one had the numbers after the election, and there was a period of negotiation. The Independents, in their wisdom, decided that they would make sure they got the policies costed. Mind you, they would already have been costed if the coalition had observed the principles that they had had set out for years. They had been coming into this place for years and saying everybody must kneel at the altar of the Charter of Budget Honesty, but they did not do it. At the first opportunity, they would not do it.

We heard the member for North Sydney talk about the timing of this MYEFO. Let me talk about the history of the timing of some of the Mid-Year Economic Statements handed down. Let's look at the so-called 'golden years' of the Costello reign. In that period, two MYEFOs were handed down in October, one on 15 October 2007 and one on 17 October 2001. We are hearing that October is too early, yet Costello did it twice. Let's have a look at some of the other dates. There was a MYEFO handed down on 21 December 2004—that was a Christmas present, was it? Santa delivered that one, and he decided to make sure it arrived just in time! There was a bit of bad news in that one. That is why they held it back and released it just on the eve of Christmas. If that is the standard you want us to observe, come on, challenge us to do it. I tell you what: we won't, because we believe it is important that the Australian people have access to this information in a timely way. There were Mid-Year Economic Statements handed down on 15 December 2005 and then 20 December 2006. How much parliamentary scrutiny did those get subjected to, being handed down in December, on the eve of Christmas?

That is the hypocrisy of those opposite, the same people with their shonky costings exposed from an $11 billion black hole. If it stopped there, you might at least come to the conclusion that they have reformed, they have seen the error of their ways. But we know they have a $70 billion black hole. The member for North Sydney has gone on breakfast television twice to tell us that and the member for Goldstein will tell anyone that will listen. Along with all of the other shortcomings of the member for North Sydney and the member for Goldstein, they do not talk, but they do talk about each other—that's for sure—to anyone that will listen.

We handed down our Mid-Year Economic Statement, containing, across the forward estimates, $16 billion worth of responsible savings measures, to ensure that we are able to chart a pathway back to surplus. There is a forecast surplus of $1.1 billion in the current year, and that surplus is forecast to increase across the forward estimates. As part of this we announced a whole series of significant structural changes to the budget to make sure that it will be fiscally sustainable over time.

And you would have thought that, given all the chest-beating that we saw when the member for North Sydney went over to the UK—he gave his speech on the age of entitlement, big man that he was!—he was going to clamp down on the age of entitlement and to undo all the middle-class welfare of the Howard years. He said that on Lateline. He was going to undo all of the damage that was done by the largesse of the Howard years.

Then he had an opportunity, when we handed down this Mid-Year Economic statement, where we said that we were going to trim the baby bonus for the second child and for subsequent children. We are not taking it away but will reduce it to $3,000 for child 2 and beyond, except if they are multiple births. You would have thought that a decision of this nature would have the wholehearted support of someone who purports to have some interest in the long-term fiscal sustainability of our budget. But instead the member for North Sydney came forward and started likening this to the one-child policy in China. When he was asked about this on Insiders, he said: 'Hang on a minute. Never before in the history of Australia has a family been penalised for having subsequent children.'

I might be missing something here, but I do not think $3,000 payments are a penalty. They are called bonuses; they are to support people in those situations. He went on to say, 'Never before have we treated the first child differently to subsequent children.' He must have forgotten about the first-child tax offset that his government, when they were last in government, introduced back in 2000-01. For those of you who may not have looked at the detail of the act or the policy behind it, I reckon the first-child tax offset may have been about the first child! And if it was about the first child and the subsequent children were not entitled to it then I reckon that, in government, the opposition may have just done exactly what he reckons no government in the history of this country has ever done. Once again, he is being very sloppy and very lazy when it comes to his details.

The opposition talk about our commitment to a surplus. One of the biggest threats to a surplus is the coalition, because every time we come forward with a sensible savings measure they want to play politics. They know it is not easy. If you want to get the government on a sustainable footing—if you want to do what the member for North Sydney said has to be done, and that is to trim away some of the largesse of the Howard years—then sometimes you have to make some decisions that are not easy. But in opposition they take the low road every time. They oppose these things. They whinge; they whine—there is no shortage of hot air from the member for North Sydney—and then, when it comes to the crunch, they either quietly wave these measures through or vote against them. But you never, ever hear them say that they will come forward and reinstate these things, because they will let us do the hard work. They are happy to let us do the heavy lifting, and they think that their moment in the sun is not far away. I will tell you what: the Australian people will demand of them a little bit more hard work than we have seen. They will demand a lot less of the sloppiness and a lot less of the laziness and little bit more hard work.

When it comes to the surplus, the opposition talk about the surplus as if a coalition government will automatically return the budget to surplus. You would have thought that from listening to the member for North Sydney. But when they have been asked about whether or not they are prepared to commit to returning the budget to surplus, what do they say? The Leader of the Opposition says, 'We'll do it as quickly as possible.' The member for Goldstein over here says, 'It just depends.' That sounds a little bit more equivocal. The member for North Sydney says, 'We'll do it as soon as possible.' He did not say, 'as quickly as possible'; he said, 'as soon as possible'. That is not too bad. Senator Abetz says, 'Hang on a minute. I'm not in the business of making extravagant promises.' So do they intend to return the budget to surplus or not?

The member for North Sydney came in here and he was talking about 'this high-taxing government' increasing taxes and retrospective taxes. Well, there is only one party in this parliament that has a plan to increase corporate taxes. It is a $12 billion monster parental leave tax, and the architect was none other than the Leader of the Opposition. Remember, he went into the party room, and we know that the opposition hated it. Look at the member for Goldstein; he is shifting uncomfortably in his seat, because they hate it. Think about this. If the Labor Party were proposing to increase corporate taxes on $3,000 of the biggest companies in this country by 1½ per cent so that we can fund a social expenditure program they would be saying, 'It's a return to the socialist ways of the Labor Party!' When the Leader of the Opposition proposed the tax they were not happy, so he went into the party room and said, 'Sometimes it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission.' They might have granted him forgiveness on that occasion but one gets the sense that they are running out of patience with his constant requests for forgiveness ahead of permission. One gets the sense that that is the case.

Why is that the case? It is not because they are taking a stand on any great principle, but some opposition members actually get out there and talk to people in their communities, and they are sensing the same thing that so many members of this place are sensing: that the Australian people are sick and tired—they have had a gutful—of the reckless negativity of this bloke. Never before have I seen a leader's standing in the polls dragging so heavily on a party's standing as what we have seen with the Leader of the Opposition. I am no genius—I will be the first to admit that—so I am not the only one who can see that. There must be people on the other side of the chamber who can see it as well. That is why the members in the chamber have conveniently started looking at their shoes at this point in time: they do not want to make eye contact because they know the truth of this. The Australian people have worked the Leader of the Opposition out. They have decided that his reckless negativity is not what this country needs in the future.

The Australian people are looking for a plan for the future. And on the weekend the Prime Minister set out a plan for our future—for how we can take advantage of the dramatic changes that are occurring in the global economy, bringing so much opportunity for prosperity to our doorstep. But it will not just land in our lap; we are going to have to work hard to achieve it. And we have a plan to do that.

Meanwhile, not only did those on the other side not come into this place and ask any sensible questions about MYEFO, or tell us which measures they intend to support and which ones they are going to oppose, but they did not even ask us a question about the Asian century, our plan or what we intend to do. The only contribution they can make is to say well, you have not committed enough money to it. The people that are jumping up and down saying this is a government that spends too much money are now telling us 'you have not committed enough money'. We have sensible plans and we will deliver them. (Time expired)

See this speech in context