Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Hansard source

The appropriation bills that are before us fit in in a very unusual section under the standing orders where, similar to the adjournment debate and the address-in-reply, a broad-ranging debate well beyond the relevance of the legislation before us is allowed. This is for a very good reason. The bills that are in front of us are what is often referred to as supply. It allows us to be able to understand that, while not bringing the nation to a standstill and not going down the level of irresponsibility that occurred in 1975, it allows there to be a full parliamentary debate that allows the governing of Australia and the bills of Australia to still be paid, without the opposition being in a position where we are compelled to argue anything other than the fact that this is a shocking budget; that this a shocking budget built on lies; that this is a budget that is the opposite of what people were told was coming; that this is a budget that is a result of a confected emergency that does not exist. Even the head of the Commission of Audit acknowledges that there is no immediate budget emergency. Even he acknowledges it, and those opposite should acknowledge it too.

In total, the bills that are in front of us seek parliamentary approval for around $1.3 billion in the current financial year and $88.4 billion for the next financial year. These reflect the ordinary, continuing operations of the government as well as new measures in the 2014-15 budget. Obviously, the ordinary expenditure that is in front of us is not the issue that is of most concern to the opposition in dealing with this budget.

I will start with the confected budget emergency. Peter Costello, to his credit, brought down a principle that we all know as the Charter of Budget Honesty. It was to make sure that governments would never again be able to create a situation where, on coming to office, they could claim, 'Oh, look, the books are in a completely different state to what we thought.' He set that up and guaranteed that the final statement of the economic legacy of a government would be produced and released and signed off on by the Secretary to the Treasury and the Secretary of the Department of Finance, and no politicians would have anything to do with the document. The Treasurer, the shadow Treasurer, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition would all see the document at the same time that it was released publicly—no-one would have advance copies of it.

The new Treasurer pretended that the Charter of Budget Honesty was meaningless. He effectively pretended that everything that Peter Costello, to his credit, had put in place in the Charter of Budget Honesty was of no economic value whatsoever. He changed budget parameters, abolished revenue measures that had been put in place—including measures to clean up a whole lot of international tax avoidance—and sent an extraordinary sum of money across to the Reserve Bank. In doing so, he himself more than doubled the deficit. Then, at the end of last year, he released a new document with the deficit having more than doubled, with spending trajectories going through the roof, and said, 'This document is the one that is Labor's legacy'—notwithstanding that it is the one that is signed off with the names Hockey and Cormann.

The level of deception was used to confect the budget emergency is nothing short of breathtaking, and those opposite who choose to back those figures in should really hang their heads in shame if they want to attach themselves to any of the economic legacy of Peter Costello. The Charter of Budget Honesty was one of the key election promises when the Howard government first came to office. They said they would bring it in and they did and—credit where credit is due—election after election, it has been a good document that has stopped governments from being able to play the game that this government is seeking to play.

Let us make it clear that every time we hear the Treasurer refer to $123 billion worth of deficits or $660 billion worth of gross debt, he is referring—

See this speech in context