Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. Minister, what are the obstacles to returning the budget to surplus?

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Shortland for her question. The global financial crisis and recession has knocked a big hole—about $210 billion—in the government’s revenue. That has necessitated borrowing to enable us to protect the Australian economy. We have set out a tough set of rules to enable us to return the budget to surplus, but it is great irony that the biggest obstacle to returning the budget to surplus is in fact the group of people who carry on the most in public about how important it is to return the budget to surplus, and of course I refer to the opposition.

In spite of all of their rhetoric and posturing about debt and deficit, you need to look at what they do—their behaviour. Here is just a sample: blocking reform of Commonwealth dental programs, savings that the government in opposition committed to make—blocking that in the Senate; blocking reforms to the private health insurance rebate and thereby knocking out $1.9 billion in savings from the government’s budget; and, most recently, demanding that the government adopt the Frontier Economics model of a carbon pollution reduction scheme, which would add an additional billion dollars plus to the budget deficit by 2020 were that to occur.

But today we have seen a further manifestation of their behaviour in this regard and, indeed, a further manifestation of their coherence. The behaviour I refer to was seen at a press conference by the member for Dickson, who indicated that, contrary to the commitment made at the Press Club on 20 May by the shadow Treasurer, the member for North Sydney, the opposition are now preparing to also block in the Senate changes to the Medicare safety net—changes which would result in savings of $450 million to the budget. These changes are necessitated by the huge amounts of money that have been flowing to a tiny group of specialists—on average, $4.5 million each out of the public purse to the top 10 per cent of specialists. And it has been indicated today by the member for Dickson that the opposition are contemplating blocking these changes.

We have to ask the question here: who is in charge over there? We have had the phoney tough guy, the member for North Sydney, saying, ‘Don’t worry; we’re going to support all these savings,’ and yet today the member for Dickson has indicated that the opposition may possibly block them in the Senate. The ‘whose in charge?’ question was today illuminated a bit further by the extraordinary performance of the member for O’Connor and the Leader of the Opposition. We have seen them walking out, we have seen them walking back in and we have seen the member for O’Connor summons the Leader of the Opposition over to the back bench to get some instructions—an extraordinary rabble performance. Some leaders are arrogant, some are weak and some are rash, but this leader of the opposition has the trifecta. For the first time in Australian political history, we have a leader of the opposition who, all in one, is arrogant, weak and rash at the same time.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Respectfully, it could not possibly be relevant to the question he was asked for the minister to be carrying on the way that he is. You have on two or three occasions in question time today tried to get the Treasurer to answer the question that he was asked. This is a dorothy dixer. I would ask you to—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will listen carefully to the Minister for Finance.

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was asked about obstacles to returning the budget to surplus and was pointing out that the biggest obstacle is the total incoherence of the opposition. The mad uncle has taken over the opposition and the member for North Sydney, who dubbed him that, has just let that happen.

I would like to conclude with a contrast—the government on the one hand and the opposition on the other. The government is early, decisive and takes action; the opposition says, ‘Do nothing.’ The government is united; the opposition divided. The government is acting in the national interest; the opposition in its own interests.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order—standing order 104, and I refer you to the House of Representatives Practice also. I ask you to uphold the ruling of a previous Speaker saying that:

… a Minister ‘should not engage in irrelevances’, such as contrasting the Government and Opposition—

and I ask you to direct the minister not to proceed, as in accordance with the previous ruling.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question was very craftily created. The member for Shortland might try to own the authorship of it. The minister is responding to the question and I believe he is about to conclude. I will listen to his conclusion.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on the point of order, it is page 553. I would ask you to uphold the ruling and, if you are saying that he is in order, are you therefore making a new ruling of which we should be aware?

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a very well crafted attempt to perhaps get me to ask Mr Wright to write another chapter of the book. I cannot adjudge whether what the minister is saying is completely and utterly a reference to obstacles but he is attempting to talk about obstacles. The member for Mackellar may not like what I am saying, but I think that this is consistent with the way in which these matters have been ruled in the past. I would suggest to her, if she wishes to assist the House, that she may wish to make a submission to the Procedures Committee about questions.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, further to the point of order, the point I made was that the ruling said it was not in order for the minister to contrast government and opposition positions. I would ask you to uphold that ruling.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would simply say that for the number of parliaments I have sat through here, I am not sure what the accuracy of that statement is.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Mackellar might think she can sit there and argue with me, but I think if she takes reference to other answers today, other answers this week, other answers this sessions and other answers in previous parliaments, she will find she is not accurately reflecting the way in which that part of Practice relates to the way in which we have operated here.

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No sooner do we have the mad uncle taking over than the mad aunty is launching a challenge!