Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

Entirely consistent with Labor's form today, they continue to abuse the standing orders and play games.

With respect to the bill at hand, we do not want a repeat of Labor's form. By setting a limit of $500 billion we signalled that it is not our intention to return to parliament seeking further increases to the limit. Did you hear that, Labor: it is not our intention to follow your track record. We will not be coming back here seeking a further increase in the limit.

Both the former government's economic statement in August and the 2013 Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook reported that the face value of Commonwealth government securities on issue that were subject to the legislative limit were projected to reach $300 billion in December 2013. That is only weeks away. If Labor has their way we will break the $300 billion limit in only a matter of weeks. These budget documents also show that the face value of the Commonwealth government securities on issue is projected to continue to increase over the forward estimates and reach around $370 billion by 2015-16. In addition to the $370 billion, as I mentioned, the Australian Office of Financial Management has previously advised that it is prudent to maintain a buffer of $40 billion to $60 billion above peak debt projected in any year. This advice from the AOFM is not a new development. In fact, as the Treasurer mentioned in question time today, this advice was provided and tabled by Treasurer Swan, the member for Lilley, in this very House at this despatch box on 10 May last year. It was based on the advice that the limit was last raised to $300 billion.

So, even on Labor's own numbers and advice a $400 billion limit would be inadequate. Let me repeat that point, and I hope the shadow Treasurer listens. Even on Labor's own numbers and advice, a $400 billion limit would be inadequate. The opposition has never understood this, and this has always been the case, because they treat the debt limit as a debt target. But as I and others have said clearly before, the budget has deteriorated since PEFO. I am advised that on current trends peak debt will now exceed $400 billion.

The debt limit needs to be increased to $500 billion to provide sufficient headroom to ensure that there is stability and certainty for financial markets. There must be confidence that the government has the capacity to finance its operations for the foreseeable future. The debt limit is a ceiling. It is not a debt target.

I also took note that the shadow Treasurer went to great lengths to make an issue of the fact that the explanatory memorandum that has been issued by the government was 11 pages in length. How extraordinary that once again we find hypocrisy! I heard one of the Labor members opposite talking about hypocrisy, but I had a look at the explanatory memorandum from 2009 and, unlike this hefty tome of 11 pages, Labor's was four pages in length. Once again, let the Australian public not be under any illusions about the fact that Labor walks into the chamber now with a very different set of expectations than the one they had when they were in government. What Labor says should not be listened to. Any analysis of Labor should be based upon their performance.

The reality is that this is a Labor Party opposite that is now seeking to frustrate this government in the job that we have to do. Our job is clear. The task at hand is to start to pay down Labor's debt, get the budget back under control and to repair the damage that Labor left behind. But one of the most crucial aspects of doing that is to provide the financial markets with stability and certainty. We do not want to be like Labor and keep coming back to this table and to this chamber asking to increase the debt limit. We want to do it once. This is Labor Party debt that we are dealing with. We want it finalised. For that reason, I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

See this speech in context