Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I have sought to refresh my memory of the Labor Party's commitments over the years to living within their means.

Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—

I am glad I have the support of the member for Hunter. I imagine the member for Griffith is equally pleased to have his support. Speaking of the member for Griffith, I reminded myself that it was in 2007, just before he was elected Prime Minister, that he declared:

I am an economic conservative.

Not to be outdone, at the National Press Club in 2007, his then shadow Treasurer said:

Like Kevin Rudd, I am an economic conservative.

Chris Uhlmann also asked the now Prime Minister the same question on the ABC in 2007. He asked:

Are you also an economic conservative?

Julia Gillard replied:

I'm an economic conservative. … I've always believed in the value of hard work and I certainly believe we need to keep the budget in surplus …

Not that Labor ever has delivered a surplus! The member for Griffith, the member for Lilley and the now Prime Minister are fingers on the same hand—they are all tinder dry economic conservatives so committed to delivering surplus budgets that they do not have to worry about debt or about putting anything on the national credit card. They were so unconcerned about their ability to properly govern the country that they introduced a bill—the Commonwealth Securities and Investment Legislation Amendment Bill. It was Chris Bowen, the member for Prospect, who introduced this. Remember that he was the author of a number of different watches—and he was not a watchmaker. He brought in Fuelwatch and GroceryWatch—all his ideas and he did such a great job with them! But little did the Treasurer know that the then Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs was issuing a debt limit bill. I suspect in the depths of my heart that the member for Prospect knew that Labor could not live within its means, so he wanted to put a little handcuff in there without the Treasurer knowing. Let us give him the benefit of the doubt. In his second reading speech he said:

The government's commitment to strong fiscal discipline means that there is no need to issue debt securities to finance spending.

Five years and $200 billion later, with a debt interest bill of over $12 billion a year, how those words must ring in the ears of the Labor Party. How those words about living within your means must ring in their ears.

They are always quick to give Australians a lecture about how the Australian people should live within their means. 'But don't worry about us,' they say, 'We're borrowing money—and we are borrowing money because we cannot deliver a surplus.' Labor has not delivered a surplus since 1989. The member for Longman, up the back there, was not even born in 1989. In his lifetime, he has never seen a Labor surplus—and I expect that, in his lifetime, he never will see a Labor surplus. And long may you live, Member for Longman.

The truth is that Labor do not know how to live within their means. They are like someone with a credit card who is out of control. When the member for Prospect introduced that prophetic bill, the Commonwealth Securities and Investment Legislation Amendment Bill, he said: 'Don't worry—we only need a $75 billion limit. That is all we need. Really that is a bit more than we need; we are going to have plenty left.' It is like a compulsive spender going into the bank and saying, 'Look, can you lend me 10 grand—I don’t need 10 grand; I'm only going to spend three or four but 10 grand is the limit I want; I want you to handcuff me.' And that is what they did. But then they feared they would exceed the limit, so they went from $75 billion to $200 billion in 2009.

They said it was a financial crisis, a calamity. Okay, there was an impact on revenues—I fully accept that, and I always have. But $200 billion? They said at the time, 'Don't worry, it is the GFC—the GFC has done it; we've seen the worst of it and we've come through it because of what Labor has done.' Then, in 2011, three years after the GFC hit the budget, they said, 'Two hundred billion is not really enough; we need to increase our debt limit.' So they go back to the bank—the parliament—and say, 'Two hundred billion is not enough; can we take it to $250 billion?' We said, 'Hang on, you said $200 billion was the limit, and before that you had said $75 billion was the limit. What is your limit?' They said, 'No, $250 billion is the limit; that is the limit we will legislate for.' They were supported by their mates, the Independents, and the Greens. The Greens would have a trillion dollars if they could. The bottom line was that they said $250 billion was the limit.

Last year, along comes the Treasurer. He says, 'Good news, Australia—we are going to run a surplus. We are going to live within our means and we are going to pay it all back by the end of the decade. But, hey, can you increase the limit to $300 billion? We are not sure, we might exceed $250 billion, but I give you a guarantee'—as he did in this place—'that at the end of the financial year we will not get above $250 billion; we will just pop up and down because we have different debt issuance instruments, and the timing is a bit here and there, but don't worry, we will not exceed $250 billion at the end of the financial year but we need to go to $300 billion.' So now we are just a few weeks from the end of the financial year and the debt is $263 billion.

Madam Speaker, we asked the most simple questions, and you bore witness to them. You were in the chair, Madam Speaker, and you heard that our questions of the Treasurer were simple and straightforward: 'Will you keep your word that the debt will not exceed $250 billion this year?' He could not answer the question. It was agony to watch—it was painful. Anyone watching in the gallery or on TV must have been aching just a little bit for the Treasurer. But not me. I know, and I suspect all of my colleagues know, that at the end of the day it is the taxpayers who have to pay back this debt. At the end of the day, someone has to pay this money back. They cry crocodile tears about cost-of-living pressures on Australians and yet they keep jacking up the taxes—27 new or increased taxes since they have come in. Not to be outdone, the Prime Minister has declared that she is going to introduce a tough budget. We know what a tough budget means—it is tough for the taxpayer. The Labor Party has no respect for taxpayers. But the Labor Party have no respect for the meaning of their words—they are just words; just spin. They have no regard for the impact of their decisions on everyday Australians.

I have confessed to a couple of friends here that my old mate Peter Costello—he remains a very good mate—said to me, '$250 billion is quite an ask, Joe.' I said, 'Do you know what, Peter, it is quite an ask. And, by the way, when Labor last left office they left a $96 billion debt, but there was a Telstra to sell, a Qantas to sell'—not that it is worth as much as it once was—'and a range of different assets to sell. I haven't got any assets to sell if I become the Treasurer.' The NBN? I could not give it away. If anyone wants to buy the NBN for one dollar, it is for sale right now. Come on, Emmo—a gold coin will do it. The CEFC? What is left? There is nothing left.

I will tell you what we are left with—as of today, $263 billion of debt, and $12 billion a year in interest payments, which is more in interest each year that the Commonwealth government has to find than the entire yearly proceeds of capital gains tax in Australia. It is four times the total collection of fringe benefits tax each year. It is far more than the carbon tax—in fact, it is more than the carbon tax and the mining tax combined. That revenue alone would not meet the interest bill on the Labor Party's debt. They say not to worry about it; the rest of the world is in great shape. But when they compare us with the rest of the world they are comparing us with Europe. Gee, Europe is doing well; it is a cracker. European countries are benchmark states for us. That is exactly who we should be comparing ourselves to! Or the United States, with its fiscal cliff. They are doing really well, too, with unemployment hovering around nine per cent. Using the United States for comparison is a great idea! Maybe Japan? How well is Japan doing? It has been in a cocoon for a decade or more, and yet those opposite compare us with Japan. They compare us with the slowest runners in the field, at a time when we should be the fastest runner in the field.

See this speech in context