Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was very proud to be able to sit in the chamber for my first budget as a member of this parliament and government and listen to the Treasurer deliver a strong budget that will deliver so much opportunity for so many Australians. It is a budget true to the values of the Labor Party—true to our commitment to education, to training and skills, to better public infrastructure, to better health care and to support for families. It continues our commitment to the dignity of work and making sure that all Australians are given to the right tools, the right incentives and the right opportunities to succeed. It is a good Labor budget that makes the difficult and challenging decision to keep our economy strong while ensuring that those who need assistance are not left behind. The budget builds on Labor's strong economic record and will ensure that we are back in the black by 2012-13. It is good for Australia and it is good for Canberra. I am very proud of this budget.

I am a person deeply committed to education. As I have mentioned time and again, I believe that education holds the answer to many of society's problems. It is, as I have said before, the great empowerer. It transforms a person. It not only provides a means to make a living but also creates a positive identity and a sense of purpose. I was therefore very pleased to see that this budget includes such a strong focus on education, particularly in the provision of skills and trades. I have been a strong advocate of vocational and trade education since the late 1980s, when I was president of the student union at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. The RMIT is the oldest workers college in the world and has a long and proud tradition of educating carpenters, electricians, plumbers, engineers and architects to name just a few of its streams.

Unfortunately, vocational and trades education was neglected under the Howard government, which has resulted in the massive skills shortage that we currently face in this nation, a skills shortage that left unchecked could impact on Australia's productivity. It was not that long ago that I spoke in this place about the difficulty of getting a tradesperson in Canberra and the impact that this was having on the economy and growth of this city. In fact, I was reminded about the cost of Canberra's skills shortages when we called in a plumber on Saturday. He was there for 15 minutes and we were charged $440.

The budget includes over $500 million for a new Workforce Development Fund to provide funding for training and workforce development in areas of both current and future need. Under this program, business and professional associations will be able to apply for funding, ensuring that training is driven by the needs of the workforce, creating a direct link between training, workforce development and growth. It is expected that this fund will deliver 100,000 new training places over four years. This budget also invests over $100 million to help mentor apprentices through their training. This important program stems from the findings of the Apprenticeships for the 21st Century expert panel, which highlighted the need to improve apprentice retention. Currently only 48 per cent of apprentices complete their training, and retention is particularly difficult in the first year. This program is aimed at providing the right guidance and mentoring to young apprentices to make sure they understand and can benefit from the opportunities of learning a trade—opportunities I strongly underscored to the bricklayers I recently met at CITEA, in the electorate of my colleague the member for Fraser. As I said, they will be the self-employed millionaires of the future. If nothing else, Saturday's experience affirmed that. The program will also provide targeted mentoring to particularly vulnerable groups who face additional barriers to participation, such as Indigenous Australians and people from a remote or regional area.

CITEA trains all sorts of apprentices, some from difficult backgrounds who have faced many challenges. CITEA's staff know firsthand the difficulties these apprentices face and the challenges they must still overcome. However, they also know the changes that can happen in someone's life when they learn a trade and how it can transform a person and give them purpose. That is why the apprentices and staff I met at CITEA were very encouraged by the focus on trades and skills in this budget—in particular, the mentoring package—because it will mean they will have more support to continue the great work they are already doing.

This skills package also includes $100 million to develop a new apprenticeship model to deliver high-quality skills more quickly and a $281 million support package for additional tax-free payments to encourage apprentices in critical trades. The $1,700 bonus is expected to support 200,000 apprentices over four years. In all, over 4,000 apprentices in my own electorate of Canberra may benefit from these investments in their skills.

This budget also continues Labor's proud heritage of delivering quality health care to all Australians. We were, after all, the party that introduced a universal healthcare system to this country with Medibank. We are investing $2.2 billion in mental health care over five years, and we are doing this because we recognise that nearly all Australians either will suffer from a mental illness or will know someone who suffers from a mental illness at some point in their lives. This package will reform a system that is, at times, driven by crisis. The package will now focus on early intervention and prevention. We are investing an additional $1.5 billion of new money into mental health, which complements our recent measures, including $443 million to tackle the problem of suicide. Our package includes $492 million for prevention and early intervention services for children and $220 million to improve access to the primary healthcare system for people with mental illness.

One in four Australians aged between 16 and 24 will experience a mental illness or substance abuse disorder, but only 25 per cent of these people will access help. This is why we are investing in the continued sustainability and expansion of the Headspace program. By 2015-16 there will be 90 Headspace sites, meaning that thousands of young Australians will not have to deal with this crisis alone. It is estimated that at its full capacity 72,000 young Australians will be helped through Headspace each year—a huge figure. I am proud that this government is continuing Labor's tradition in health care, in this case the development of a national mental health system.

This is a budget that also helps small business. There are approximately 2.7 million small businesses in Australia, accounting for around 96 per cent of Australian business. Up until August last year I ran one of those businesses, so I know firsthand the pressures and challenges faced by people in small business. That is why this government will make changes to allow small business to claim up to $5,000 as an immediate tax deduction for motor vehicles acquired in 2012-13. The government will also reduce pay-as-you-go instalments for 2011-12 for the majority of small businesses. This will have the benefit of freeing up cash flow for 2.7 million small businesses. As a former small business owner, I can attest that this development is most welcome. This budget also provides $7.1 million to continue the Small Business Support Line. This line has already received 30,000 calls and emails and is widely appreciated by small business owners.

Earlier this month I held my first free forum on how to start your own small business, because during my 10 years in business I was constantly asked how to go about setting one up. The forum gave me the opportunity to outline the basic steps. During the forum, potential small business owners were also linked with mentors and support services. In my discussions with those who attended, I found that they were very pleased with the actions of this government in providing support to them.

This is also a budget that continues this government's commitment to supporting the development of our near neighbours. Two-thirds of the world's poor live in our region. Eighteen of our nearest 20 neighbours are developing countries. Apart from the strong moral imperative to help those less fortunate than ourselves, it is also in our national interest. By ensuring that our neighbours have access to food and clean water, to health care and to education, we build trading partners and help to combat regional instability and terrorism. For all of those reasons, this government is committed to helping those in extreme poverty. This budget includes $1.9 billion over four years for new measures. This includes $492.8 million to expand Australia's development partnership with Indonesia, $124.5 million to improve enrolment and completion rates in education in the Pacific islands and $433.1 million to improve water sanitation and hygiene internationally but with a particular focus on the Asia-Pacific. We do this in spite of the call from those opposite, because we know it is in Australia's interests and that it is the right thing to do.

Finally, I could not leave my speech here on the budget without addressing some of the statements made by those opposite, in particular the calls to slash and burn the Public Service. I said in my first speech in this chamber that I would defend Canberra and those Canberrans who dedicate their lives to serve their country and to deliver critical services. I said in my first speech that public service should be lauded, not derided. The member for North Sydney continues to talk about the impact of this budget on families but so glibly ignores the impact of the opposition's policies on 12,000 Public Service families, many of them in Canberra. It is as if public servants are not people—as if they are not mothers or fathers or sisters or brothers. The fact is that federal Labor continues to provide a stable employment base across the Commonwealth Public Service despite the challenging global economic conditions and unprecedented national disasters. Labor is still on track to return the budget to surplus in 2012-13. So ill-considered are the opposition's policies on the public service, they cannot even get the numbers right. The member for North Sydney claims that the Public Service has increased by 20,000 under the Labor government; the truth is that it is less than half that figure.

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

Your budget papers are wrong then.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Member for North Sydney, there are standing orders of the House and they will be upheld.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When the member for North Sydney talks about an organisation that delivers the best services to our citizens, and supports the activities of Australians across our country and around the world, he has a responsibility to get his numbers right. To so recklessly condemn 12,000 families to unemployment—and to seem to do so with such little concern and inaccurate figures—makes me wonder how he expects to run this economy. He is a risk to Canberra and a risk to Australia.

This budget is a strong budget that delivers on key reforms to health and education and to the structure of the economy. Most importantly, it is a Labor budget that is good for Australia and good for Canberra. It is the right budget for its time and I commend it to the House.

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

I would hope the member for Canberra does not leave at this time because I would like to respond to an issue that she chose to raise. There are three pieces of legislation here that the parliament is being asked to deal with, and two of them are explicitly appropriation bills. Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012 is the primary budget bill to appropriate money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for 'the ordinary annual services of government and related purposes', and that is $72.85 billion. There is a second bill, the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012. The key purpose of this bill is to appropriate funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for expenditure within parliamentary departments. This totals $180 million. I note that the Department of the Senate appropriation is $22 million, the Department of the House of Representatives appropriation is $23 million and the Department of Parliamentary Services appropriation is $135 million.

The third bill we are being asked to vote upon, which I would like to talk a little bit more about, is the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2011-2012. This bill has two key purposes. The first is to allow annual appropriations for services that are not the ordinary annual services of government, including portfolio allocations and allocations to particular states and territories. But it is the second part of Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2011-2012 where the coalition will be seeking to move amendments later in this debate to appropriately reflect the significance of the proposed amendment to the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act to increase the limit 'on the face value of stock and securities' that can be on issue under the Treasurer's standing borrowing authority. The total appropriation in this bill is $7.4 billion. We do not have any dispute with the appropriations. We stay clear to our word that we will not oppose appropriations.

What is rather interesting is the fact that this government has chosen to roll amendments to the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act into an appropriation bill. This is clearly in defiance of the recent precedent, which was the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Act 2009. The government has done this in a manner that seeks to remove substantive debate about the fact that they want to increase the borrowing capacity of the Commonwealth from $200 billion to $250 billion. When the last amendment to the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act occurred it was under a separate piece of legislation that specifically increased the borrowing limit of the Commonwealth by $125 billion, from $75 billion to $200 billion.

From memory, at that time it was the Minister for Finance and Deregulation who introduced the bill. He did not have much to say about it at the time. When we specifically asked questions about it there was nothing more than obfuscation from the then Prime Minister and the Treasurer in response. However, I well recall a speech I gave on 4 February 2009 in relation to that bill. At that time, I pointed out that the change to the borrowing limit of the Commonwealth was not an appropriation and therefore that bill, which represented little more than one page, would inevitably be the beginning and not the end of the borrowing program of the Commonwealth.

There were lots of critics but I would say to you that I was right. Here we have buried in an appropriation bill an amendment to the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act that allows for a blanket increase in the borrowing limit of the Commonwealth from $75 billion to $200 billion. Previously there needed to be a declaration by the Treasurer but now the Treasurer is seeking to waive that declaration and simply have the money allocated instead. The Treasurer will say, 'This is an appropriation because there is a section in the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) that allocates for an appropriation to buy back our securities.' The fact of the matter is that in this budget the government is saying that it is getting back to surplus. Reading the press conference of the Leader of the House yesterday, you would have thought that the government has actually delivered a surplus. Frankly, no, that is not the case. It is not delivering a surplus this year, as the budget papers quite explicitly reveal. In 2009-10 the underlying cash balance was $54.8 billion; in 2010-11 it will be $49.4 billion, which is a significant deterioration from what was in MYEFO; and in 2011-12 the deficit will be $22.6 billion. The appropriation bill that the parliament is actually going to vote on allows for a deterioration in the budget deficit, not an improvement in the budget cash bottom line, and that is all at a time, as the budget papers reveal, when the economy is going to grow faster—it is going from 2¼ per cent growth in 2010-11 to four per cent growth. So the economy is growing faster, but the deficit is getting bigger.

We often hear the government talk about how it is going to create half a million jobs. In fact, business creates jobs, although I will come back to the Commonwealth Public Service in a moment. But employment growth is actually slowing, from 2¾ per cent today to 1¾ per cent in the forecast period, 2011-12 to 2012-13. Far from it being a badge of honour that the government is overseeing an economy creating half a million jobs, it actually represents a slowdown in the pace of employment growth. On top of all that, the unemployment rate is expected to grow from five per cent in the current year—a little below actually but in the reported figures it is five per cent—to 4 ¾ per cent and then 4½ per cent.

This is a failed Labor budget. The truest words the Treasurer said on budget night were that it is a Labor budget. It is a Labor budget: it has growing debt, a growing deficit and slowing jobs growth. However, the government inherited the best terms of trade in nearly 140 years. As I illustrated to the Press Club the other day, when you look at the graph that is in the budget papers about the terms of trade you will see emphatically that the terms of trade have been far more generous to the current government than they were to even the previous government. The government is fond of saying that we had rivers of gold in mining boom mark 1. As I said at the Press Club, it is all part of one mining boom. If you look at the terms of trade graph—and few have bothered to do that—you will see a continuation of the generous terms of trade from, effectively, 2005-06 onwards.

This is a Labor budget because the gains have been squandered, because the opportunity has been lost and because the Labor Party has chosen, yet again, to increase the size of the Commonwealth debt without proper explanation. I imagine that is the most frustrating issue for everyday Australians. This government is asking everyday Australians to cut their own costs and to rein in the family budget, yet the government is failing to do so itself.

It is rather disappointing that the member for Canberra repeats allegations made by the Special Minister of State about staffing levels but does not stand by to hear the explanations, which are in the government's own budget papers. I urge the member for Canberra to read her own budget papers—page 6-51 of Budget Paper No. 1, Estimates of Average Staff Levels: 2006-07, 238,623; and then 248,214; up to 250,566; up to 258,321; up to 261,891; and up to 262,995 in 2011-12. I give credit to this government. I said business was in the business of creating half a million jobs, but the government is giving it a fair old shake. It is employing 1,100 more public servants in this budget alone, 200 of which are in the Prime Minister's own department. The old Treasurer has got a bit of an increase, too—50. In our day we used to boast that Treasury was quite a lean department. The Public Service has increased by more than 20,000 employees since Labor was elected. The government says, 'Where are your cuts?' and we say, 'Well, we are going to have to make 12,000 public servants based in Canberra redundant within two years,' through natural attrition, I should say. It asks where are our cuts. On the one hand, it says that our cuts are phoney but, on the other hand, it accuses us of cutting the Public Service.

This is a typical Labor budget that leaves everyday Australians behind. How? Because everyday Australians are struggling with increased costs of living. They are the forgotten Australians. They are not just the forgotten people or, as my leader said, the forgotten families; they are the forgotten small businesses, the forgotten pensioners, the forgotten self-funded retirees and the forgotten veterans. Whilst there is a huge and significant benefit associated with the mining boom, unless there is the opportunity for others to participate—if they become the victims of the transition in the Australian economy rather than the beneficiaries of it—Australians will become resentful. They will do that on the back of the rising cost of living. Bananas are at $3.50 now and the defenders of the government say, 'Oh, that was Cyclone Yasi.' Yes, it was. There is always an excuse, and often they are legitimate. But it is what people have to pay for, such as more for rents and housing, for electricity, for water and sewerage, for education and for health. Yes, there may well be 1,000 good excuses, but the bottom line is that everyday Australians are feeling the pain associated with a higher cost of living. The government is making it worse by imposing a carbon tax, by imposing a mining tax and by imposing a flood levy. If you want the simple answer as to how the coalition will reduce the everyday burden of the cost of living, look no further: we oppose the flood levy, we oppose the mining tax and we oppose the carbon tax. They are taxes on Australians and they will flow through in one form or another to every Australian. You can only squeeze the lemon so hard. On top of all of that, as so many economists have pointed out rather emphatically, it is the case that there is nothing in this budget that is going to reduce the upward pressure on interest rates.

My colleague, the shadow minister for finance and member for Goldstein, will have something to say about the sneaky way this government has put in an increase in the credit card limit of the Commonwealth to $200 billion. From our perspective, as I said at the National Press Club, this budget was a lost opportunity. This budget was the last chance to do something for everyday Australians and, typical of a Labor budget, they blew it.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The one thing this budget confirms is that unelected miners are writing the skills, immigration, fiscal and revenue policies of this country. Budgets are about more than dollars and cents and balancing the books; they are about setting priorities for the government and, as a result, the nation. They are budgets to find the economic goal settings of the months and years ahead and, as a result, shape the life of the country for the times to come. In short, budgets define a vision and a plan for Australia. This budget was an opportunity to define a new direction for this country. Unfortunately, whilst there were some small steps down the right path, there were no giant leaps down the path of sustainability, compassion and equality.

There are five key things this budget should have done to ensure Australia's prosperity. Firstly, go through our spending with a Green eraser and redirect about $10 billion in subsidies away from fossil fuel industries and use them to fund clean energy skills and industry policy that would make Australia a world leader. Secondly, assist those parts of the economy struggling from a high Australian dollar and the pressures associated with the mining boom. Thirdly, safeguard Australia's future by establishing a sovereign wealth fund which could pay for the green infrastructure Australia needs, like high-speed rail. Fourthly, rethink the $3.1 billion big business corporate tax cut in light of the decline in revenue and the government's cave-in on the mining tax. Fifthly, help the tens of thousands of refugees and migrants already in this country, who have great skills and capacity and are either unemployed or underemployed, before going for a cheap quick-fix of imported labour. Instead, we had more of the quarry vision that has dominated the thinking of successive governments in this country.

In short, this is a miners' budget. It is a miners' budget that aims to stoke the fires of the mining boom but puts little into preparing for when the boom might end. It is a miners' budget that fails to protect the structural revenue base of the government and, instead, hands back money to the big corporations including the big mining giants. It is a miners' budget that penny pinches from the poor and cuts government programs because of its unwillingness to take on the mining magnates. It is a miners' budget that squanders the opportunity to prepare for the future through starting a process of establishing a sovereign wealth fund, despite recommendations from Treasury and most credible economist.

There are good things in this budget. The investment in mental health, a first down payment on the Greens' plan for a dental healthcare scheme and reform to the fringe benefits tax are long overdue and are to be welcomed. One cannot escape the fact that lack of political courage to stare down the miners or break out of the political straightjacket and arbitrary timeline for return to surplus means this budget and this government is not taking on the big tasks facing this country. Political courage is what is needed—political courage to stare down an opposition leader who is so focused on winning that any semblance of economic responsibility has been jettisoned; political courage to take on the big polluters, who have joined the opposition leader in a fear campaign against one of the most important reforms this country will ever undertake, which is crucial to our economic prosperity and, I believe, our survival as a viable nation; political courage to really think beyond the mining boom, not just rhetorically but concretely, and to put in place a plan for our economic future.

Last week the President of the United States, Barack Obama, showed great political courage when he gave a very important speech setting out the United States' policy towards the Middle East and North Africa, supporting the wonderful movements towards democracy and shifting US policy on Israel and Palestine. But, in the same speech, he also made clear what he saw as the future for economic development in the region and the world. He said:

… some nations are blessed with wealth in oil and gas, and that has led to pockets of prosperity. But in a global economy based on knowledge, based on innovation, no development strategy can be based solely upon what comes out of the ground …

Every current and future Australian Treasurer should put those words on their desk or office wall and read them every day. It is this insight, this common sense, which is prevalent in the US but is missing from this budget.

Yes, Australia is an enormously wealthy country and the economy is booming. We have emerged strongly from the global recession, partly because of an economic stimulus package, which was backed and improved by the Greens, which created hundreds of thousands of jobs. Now, as the budget papers show, the mining boom is driving growth in the economy, investment in mining will amount to $76 billion by the end of this financial year and we will have the highest terms of trade in 140 years. Unless we manage this boom properly, and unless we are prepared to take the gains and invest them wisely in other areas of the economy and prepare for the future, we will have squandered an enormous opportunity. As we know, and as the budget papers reinforce, we are in a two-speed economy and the pressures of this two-speed economy are having negative impacts on non-mining sectors. In my own state of Victoria, which does not share in the direct benefits of the boom in mining projects in the same way as others, the costs of this two-speed economy are increasingly obvious. The demand in the mining sector is putting upward pressure on labour and capital costs and restricting investment, particularly in infrastructure, and the higher dollar, in part driven by the mining boom, is making it harder for manufacturers, tourism and our international education sectors. But this budget has no real plan for these problems and they are mirrored in many other areas of the economy.

With the exception of a passing mention of aged care, the investment in skills training is focused on propping up those sectors that are doing well already. The investment in skills is welcome, but it is distorted by the needs of the big miners, with its stated purpose being to support the resources sector. It is in effect a skills budget for a one-speed economy. Even then, much of the spending is back-ended and pushed out past the forward estimates. Thirty-five per cent of the National Workforce Development Fund does not kick in until 2014-15. The funding of $3 billion to reform training goes beyond the forward estimates and a third comes from existing programs. The $558 million National Workforce Development Fund takes $200 million of funding from the existing Critical Skills Investment Fund.

The holy grail of reforming vocational education and training is a worthwhile quest many governments have promised to follow before, but its success will rely on cooperation from the states and the $1.75 billion in spending allocated in the budget is not there until 2012-13 and is then spread over five years, with $800 million taken from the existing Productivity Places Program. For all the rhetoric on building the future workforce, there is no specific plan to train people for the new clean economy. Regardless of the worth of this skill package, it hardly adds up to a comprehensive plan to deal with the two-speed economy and it certainly does not equate with a plan for our economic future after the mining boom.

Whilst the average national unemployment rate is currently about 4.9 per cent, there is a group of people who were not mentioned in the budget at all—that is, those who have come here in humanitarian and refugee streams and their families, amongst whom the current unemployment rate is around 11.7 per cent. The unemployment level for tertiary educated migrants from non-English-speaking countries is four times higher than their Australian-born counterparts. If you are a tertiary educated migrant from a non-English-speaking country and are lucky enough to have a job, you are twice as likely as an Australian counterpart to be working in a low-skilled occupation. The Greens believe everything must be done to support local workers in employment, including the tens of thousands here under humanitarian and family programs, before we fly in short-term workers. Away from the glare of the budget spotlight, miners have again shown their capacity for unwarranted influence by securing a government back down on the $5,000 local training levy that was originally the other half of the deal to import overseas workers via enterprise migration agreements. At an absolute minimum, the $5,000 levy should be reinstated.

Many members of this place would know the former member for Melbourne Lindsay Tanner. He has had many interesting things to say in the last few weeks about the sideshows that have come to dominate the media cycle and much of politics, but he has also said that a key question for Australia is: what will we sell the rest of the world in 15 years time? I think it is a good question. This budget's answer to that question is coal, but we need a better answer. We need a real industry policy to ensure the long-term sustainability and growth of the manufacturing sector in this country. We need a plan for the tourism and services sectors of the economy and we need a plan for education, innovation, science and technology. Instead, we have seen small but significant cuts to the areas of research. To the government's credit, we did not see mooted cuts to the National Health and Medical Research Council, which the Greens opposed and were the subject of a spirited public campaign led by scientists from my electorate of Melbourne. However, we did see cuts to the cooperative research centres' budgets and other areas of science that again represent a failure to understand what President Obama is warning us about. I believe investment in science and innovation combined with strong industry policies is the key to Australia's future economic prosperity. It is investment in research and development that will be crucial to the clean energy revolution, will define the 21st century economy and will enable us to tackle climate change. It is investment in science and innovation that will enable us to create sustainable industries that can take us beyond the mining boom.

We only get to dig up our minerals once. We need to follow the lead of other countries that have had large resource wealth and put in place a sovereign wealth fund, a fund that can enable us to take the gains of the mining boom and fund the infrastructure and industry policies that will be needed over the coming century and help us make a transition to an economy that is beyond that of a quarry vision. This budget could have made a start on that task by establishing a sovereign wealth fund. There are about 37 countries that have such funds. There is currently $5 trillion in sovereign wealth funds around the world and this will double to $10 trillion by 2015. Under the coalition, and now under Labor, the mining boom has been squandered. There are many investments a sovereign wealth fund could make. For example, it could underpin investments in important future infrastructure such as high-speed rail, which could rapidly carry Australians in clean, fast, efficient and cheap transport from Sydney via Canberra to Melbourne in three to four hours. The Greens would fund that through a proper resource take from the mining giants.

On 2 May last year, Prime Minister Rudd and Treasurer Swan announced that they would introduce the mining super-profits tax based on the Henry tax review. The mining industry campaigned against the tax, spending $22 million on an advertising campaign and as a result they got $100 billion stripped out of the people's revenue over the next decade. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition's plan is worse. He opposes a mining tax altogether, which would strip $140 billion over the next decade compared with the Henry recommendations. So the mining corporations, who employ just two per cent of Australians, would under the opposition leader's plan deprive the other 98 per cent of $140 billion over the coming decade. We now know that the mining tax should have been framed to collect little in the early years but cranked up in the second half of the decade, but unfortunately the mining tax agreed to by the Treasurer and set out in this budget looks as if it will behave like the fuel excise—falling as a share of GDP when the budget in fact needs it to grow. At the same time, this budget continues with the government's plan for a cut to the corporate tax rate, letting the big corporations keep another $3.1 billion in their pockets at the expense of the taxpayer. The Greens support a tax cut for small business. Small business provides 47 per cent of total employment, or around five million jobs, in this country. Compare that with the mining industry's 206,000 jobs. And we would also take to the budget with a green razor. We would remove the fossil fuel subsidies, which total between $10 billion and $12 billion a year, including fuel tax credits, which add up to $5 billion a year. We would keep the fuel tax credits for farmers, which cost just $680 million of that $5 billion.

These tax credits means that, while ordinary Australians pay 38c tax per litre of fuel, the big mining corporations pay nothing. So every time an everyday Australian goes to the petrol browser they know they are paying 38c more in tax than these massively wealthy mining corporations getting their fuel in the same country.

This budget continues the 'quarry vision' of past governments; trapped in the headlights of the China boom, the government cannot see what might be coming in the future. This budget fails to give a boost to those in the slow lane of the economy; instead the government has chosen to put a foot on the accelerator of those in the fast lane.

The mining boom offers enormous opportunities but they are not being taken. We can start to plan for a different direction and a different future. We can ensure our future economic prosperity beyond the mining boom. An innovative economy, prosperous and sustainable, with compassion and equality, is possible; we just need the political courage to get there.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No wonder there were so many leaks before budget night; this budget was never going to hold water! There were no surprises left by budget night; Labor had cynically leaked all sorts of stories so that they could get uncritical media coverage over the week leading up to the budget. Now that the budget is available for public scrutiny, journalists and the public know why Labor wanted free air for its version of what is in the budget. So much of the rhetoric surrounding this budget was simply empty air, Sussex Street spin, overblown statements which were completely over the top and not reflective of what is actually in this budget. Indeed, this is a budget that lacks vision and lacks direction; there is no plan for the future of this country.

The Prime Minister and the Treasurer have both said on numerous occasions that this is a true Labor budget that underscores Labor values. I think that statement is actually truthful. All the big taxes, all the cuts in particular areas where Labor has always shown a vendetta, are the true Labor values. With overblown rhetoric, they claim enormous programs when, in fact, there is nothing of substance to back them up. A classic and particularly cruel example is the $2.2 billion announcement on mental health. This announcement of funding actually covered up a cut in mental health spending in the 2011 budget. A cut was sold as a $2.2 billion increase in mental health care. The reality is—and the previous member referred to this—that much of the announced expenditure programs are not even in the forward estimates. And that is true of the mental health initiative. There is very little action provided in this budget. You have to wait until beyond 2015 to get this increase in expenditure. So Labor has produced a big program but has not produced the money that is required.

What about the $1.4 billion regional package? Only $300 million of that is provided in the entire forward estimates of this budget. The Independents, who thought they had achieved some kind of breakthrough for regional Australia, have apparently been bought off with just $300 million over four years. That is less than would have been provided in routine programs for regional areas under the previous government. Regional areas, above all, have been very poorly treated by this government in this budget. The classic example of them all is the $1 billion that the minister for infrastructure announced as new funding for the Pacific Highway. In fact, there is not going to be any road built with that money at all.

This budget has no clear vision and no clear plan. There is $19 billion worth of new expenditure initiatives but there is $22 billion worth of cuts. We are told that that made this government really vicious with the knife, that they were really out there to save money and make cuts that really hurt. But one-third of the much lauded $22 billion in spending cuts is actually new taxes. That is not really a cut at all. What it actually is doing things the Labor way. Labor values higher taxes. And, of course, it is the families that will have to bear this load.

Labor's legacy to Australian families since coming to government is really a tale of shame: electricity prices up 51 per cent, water up 40 per cent, health costs up 20 per cent and grocery prices up 14 per cent. Homeowners have endured seven interest rate rises and we have been told to brace for a couple more before year's end. And, of course, inflation is on the march and shows no sign of abating.

Nothing in this federal budget will ease those pressures on families struggling to pay ever increasing bills—in fact, their plight will get worse. Bracket creep will gouge an extra $11.6 billion from Australian families by 2013-14. By doing nothing in this budget to alter tax rates, Labor will in fact be forcing more families into higher tax brackets. This is the first budget in eight or nine years that contains no tax cuts. That is Labor's values all right, that is a Labor style budget. The effect will be that the percentage of the Australian population paying the highest rate of tax will rise from 18 per cent to 24 per cent by 2013-14. A quarter of all taxpayers will be on the top rate—and that is Labor's vision, Labor's values. There is nothing or creative or innovative about that. It is just an outright tax slug.

Then the changes to family tax benefits A and B mean that middle-income earners are worse off. The flood tax is another chip at middle Australia. There was no need for other governments of both political persuasions to have new taxes for Cyclone Tracy, Cyclone Larry and the 10-year drought. Those events did not need special taxes but, under this Labor government, the flooding in Queensland and other states is another excuse to implement yet another Labor tax.

Means testing of the private health insurance rebate is particularly mean and dumb. It slugs people who take responsibility for their own health care and it will see the public hospital queues overrun. In the end it will cost taxpayers twice as much as Labor hopes to save from the cuts. Deloitte, in its study of the impact of these rebate cuts, has estimated that the government will save about $1.9 billion by reducing the rebate but the cost to the public health system of this change will be $3.8 billion. So a cut to the rebate, forcing more people into the public health system, will actually increase the cost of health care to the taxpayers of Australia by $3.8 billion. I know that this is a goal that Labor has been pursuing ever since they came into office. They hate private health insurance. They hate the private health system and they have been trying to hack away at it. The government has been defeated twice previously in the parliament on this issue and I hope that the Independents and others who have a key influence in this area will realise that the proposition is no better now than when it was defeated on previous occasions. Middle Australia is to be forgiven for feeling under siege by the Gillard government, because, frankly, it is.

While all of this is underway the carbon tax is still to come. The carbon tax is an all-consuming black hole from which there is no escape. It starts on 1 July 2012, like the mining super tax, but there are no details in the budget—except that the government has found $13.7 million to run a publicity campaign to try and ease the public's rightful concern about the fact that this tax will affect them every time they move and every time they seek to do something.

The government has also failed to lift its gaze beyond the urban sprawl, and lacks any vision for regional Australia. People in the bush got some lip service and hollow rhetoric but little by way of new benefits. Take the grand infrastructure claims by Minister Albanese. New funding for flood-proofing Queensland's Bruce Highway might have sounded good as part of the spin but these are exactly the same projects that Labor had canned earlier this year. They just reannounced them and pretended that this, somehow or another, was new money. But the money had been taken from other projects in Queensland. Indeed, two of the most important road-building projects in the whole of the state—Minister Albanese has gone on the public record time and time again advocating their importance—namely, the Ipswich Motorway and the Bruce Highway upgrade from Cooroy to Curra, were canned. Minister Albanese has repeatedly described the Cooroy to Curra section of the Bruce Highway as the most dangerous section of highway in the whole of the state, yet now he is taking $325 million off the reconstruction of this accident prone section of the highway, as well as the Ipswich Motorway. so that he can refund projects he axed only a few months ago.

The Cooroy to Curra section is in my own electorate. In this budget it failed to get the funding it desperately needs so that the project can be continued. Labor has never matched the coalition's commitment to complete this work by 2020; now they have taken money away from a job that is already under construction. This demonstrates clearly that Labor has no commitment to building the infrastructure of Australia; they are just interested in big announcements and big spin. They fail to deliver when it really matters.

The Treasurer told us to expect a billion dollars for the duplication of the Pacific Highway from Sydney to the Queensland border but when you looked at it there was no new money. The billion dollars is made up of $700 million that has been provided previously to the highway and $270 million syphoned from other projects in New South Wales. The minister conceded in his own press release on this billion-dollar announcement that it would not build one centimetre of extra bitumen. If we want some road built the New South Wales government will have to put up the money. There is no duplication; there is just more duplicity from this government.

Then there are the extra 6,000 skilled migrants that will come to regional areas, but that NFF has said that agriculture alone need 80,000 extra skilled positions. But wait: there's less! The Treasurer flagged extra payments to encourage apprentices but neglected to tell us that agricultural and horticultural apprentices are specifically excluded from the training program. That shows how out of touch this government is with regional life. It increased the fringe benefits tax provisions that directly affects regional businesses and farmers. Regional people have to travel longer distances and they will be hit hardest by these changes to the fringe benefits tax rules.

There has not been a budget since Labor came to office that has not taken the razor to the department of agriculture. Again, another $32.8 million has been slashed from its operational budget. In every budget Labor has slashed expenditure for this department, which is now a shell. It has no capabilities to deliver programs for Australian farmers, in spite of the fact that the farm sector drives $155 billion a year in economic production—12 per cent of GDP—and $32 billion a year in exports and supports 1.6 million Australian jobs.

And the budget continues to perpetrate Labor's flawed approach to the Murray-Darling Basin, cutting $400 million from investment in water-saving infrastructure across the basin. They continue with their lazy buy-out approach, which will not deliver the results that can produce a prosperous and effective regional Australia. Labor promised $1.4 billion for the Regional Development Fund, but it took $400 million out for flood recovery and that left just $1 billion. But on budget night the government only outlaid $300 million over four years—with 70 per cent held off until well after the next election. You have to trust Labor, if it does get re-elected, to produce the money for regional development after the next election. Another example of how Labor treats regional Australians with contempt is the knowledge that over half of the $800 million to be provided for projects in regional Australia is going to build roads around Perth airport. It seems Labor defines regional Australia as the roads around Perth airport. I know the roads around Perth airport need upgrading. The coalition intended to provide funding for that project but from the roads budget, not from the regional development budget. We are told that is another example of Labor's values and how it demonstrates its commitment to the regions.

Despite enjoying the most positive terms of trade in 140 years, Labor is taking us all towards a $107 billion debt. Every day, Labor will have to borrow $135 million and pay $18 million in interest just to pay its bills. This is not a budget that delivers for Australia; it is a budget of debt that lacks vision and will place a huge burden on future generations.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the 22nd budget that has been delivered since I entered the parliament in March 1990, and I think it is the same for the previous speaker, Mr Truss. We have seen a lot of budgets in our time and, quite frankly, you can summarise the budget recently delivered by the Treasurer in the following terms, 'It is a budget for the times.' Shortly after this government was elected in 2007, it was confronted with the global financial crisis, a worldwide economic crisis about which the figures are now just in. We were told that if we did nothing there would be an extra 200,000 on the unemployment queues. The government did something. The Labor government engaged in a stimulus package that involved social housing, money for pensioners and money for schools.

When Labor took office in November 2007 there were 10.7 million employed persons in Australia. In April 2011 there were 11.4 million employed persons in Australia. That equates to 734,000 new jobs since Labor came to government. That is a proud record for the Labor Party. That is not something that just happened and that would not have happened if we had behaved like a moo cow, watching passing traffic and doing nothing. The government was activist. The Labor Party have always held at its core the importance of jobs. Without a job, you cannot pay your mortgage and you cannot protect your family. Underpinning this particular budget is that the rate of unemployment is forecast to fall to 4½ per cent by mid-2013, which will create another half a million jobs. Jobs, jobs, jobs: that is the hallmark of this government.

In the Treasurer's budget speech, he pointed out that in the past year we have created over 300,000 jobs. If one looks around the world, one will see that, while employment in Australia has grown by almost seven per cent since the end of 2007 and 5.3 per cent since the middle of 2008, across the OECD employment has fallen by 1.4 per cent and 1.8 per cent respectively. Employment fell by 14 per cent in Ireland, which has been affected the most by the global financial crisis. Every G7 country has experienced either a fall in employment or negligible jobs growth since the end of 2007 and the middle of 2008, but not Australia. That is because the government has acted appropriately. It has not taken the approach of slashing and burning that the opposition would have—or done nothing, another alternative from the opposition. The opposition have said they would not have done what the government has done since 2007. We now have a period in which to compare our record with the global record, and we stand up as the envy of the rest of the world in relation to our employment situation.

One of the reasons that the public might not have necessarily appreciated what has happened is that there have not been the dole queues that we have been used to in the past—when either side were in government—and a shortening of those queues. What has happened is that jobs have been protected and jobs have been created. I remember going to the opening of some social housing in Hurstville and an employee of the company that had built those houses saying, 'Without the government's involvement in the social housing program, we would have lost our jobs.' You need growth in the economy to create employment. You need the multiplier effect. For every dollar that is put into the economy there is $4 that is washed around the economy, and that goes towards employment. I think the government's priorities are right. These are not easy times. These are difficult times.

We have committed to being back in the black in two years time. No-one has managed to punch a hole in that argument. There has been a bit of rhetoric, but we have not seen a credible economist saying that the budget figures are bodgie or dodgy. It has now been some time since the budget was delivered. The only people who will be unhappy if the budget goes into the black in a couple of years time are the members of the opposition. They are big on rhetoric, but no alternative budget strategy was presented by the Leader of the Opposition on the Thursday night after the budget. They produce a lot of rhetoric but no alternative programs. 'Yes, we'd cut, too,' they say, but they will not tell us where they are going to cut.

As I said, this is, in the main, a budget for the times because, for me, a Labor representative in this place, the most important thing is employment in the community—lowering the unemployment rate, getting it down to 4.5 per cent. I know there is a suggestion that interest rates may go up in the next 12 months. Well, whoop-de-do! Interest rates go up and down, but I am not a slave to interest rates. I do not apologise; I am a slave to a reduction in unemployment because I have seen the devastation in my community, in Bankstown and Hurstville. I can remember 1996, when the former Keating government was defeated and the subsequent conservative budget came down and slashed and burned. In the space of a couple of years, from 1996 to 1998, youth unemployment in the Canterbury-Bankstown region went from 17½ per cent to 34½ per cent as SkillShare programs were closed down and slashing and burning occurred. I believe there needs to be restraint; I am not arguing against restraint. But we need to do it in an appropriate manner.

I do not apologise for regional Australia getting extra money, because there are extra costs involved in living in regional Australia. I have no problem with creating infrastructure for regional Australia—Queensland and Western Australia—because, without that assistance, those communities would not be able to survive. I believe—and I have said it before in relation to Indigenous Australians—true equality requires differential treatment to bring us up to the same level. That is why I do not have a problem with regional states such as Tasmania, Western Australia and Queensland getting a little extra funding in percentage terms compared to New South Wales and Victoria. In some respects it is easier to produce infrastructure programs in Victoria and New South Wales—although, as has been documented, New South Wales has not had a good record in recent times.

At the federal level, continuing to create employment opportunities requires cooperation with our state colleagues because a lot of the efficiency and a lot of the productivity is going to come out of the states. Instead of Sydney commuters being stuck in 'parking lots' on the way to work, the infrastructure there needs to be looked at. You need to have those roads flowing. You need properly funded public transport. When I was the opposition spokesman on housing and urban development and local government, I was amazed by the number of people who were actually employed within a small distance of their home. These are the issues for Greater Western Sydney on which it is important for us to work with the state government. That government is now of a different political persuasion, but the principles are the same irrespective of the politics of the particular government—to make sure that the people of Western Sydney are not neglected. We need to ensure that because that is where the growth is, in that south-western corridor—future housing development at Bringelly and business development on the old Badgerys Creek site. Our budget is an important budget for driving the economy and no-one has yet come up with any credible debunking of the projections of 500,000 jobs in the next two years and of a reduction to 4.5 per cent unemployment.

The one area of the budget about which I do have reservations relates to the efficiency dividend, which was first introduced in 1986-87. If my mathematics are right, this is its 25th year in operation. The efficiency dividend is designed to get blood out of a rock in relation to the public service. My particular concern arises out of the fact that for the last three years—I was elected on 13 May 2008—I have served this House as a representative on the National Library of Australia Council. That three-year term ended on 12 May. I did not seek to do another term and I note, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, that you will be representing the House on the National Library of Australia Council.

In the three years that I was a representative, I did not miss a meeting. I had access to a lot of information and I was able to observe the staff and members of the council. This nation is well served by those on the council and by the staff of the National Library of Australia. I think that is true of the National Archives of Australia, the National Museum of Australia and the Australian War Memorial—all those places that are national institutions, that are cultural institutions. I believe that it is not necessarily appropriate for the efficiency dividend to operate on those cultural institutions the way it operates on other public service bodies. I believe the government should have a look at the overall operation of the efficiency dividend in relation to cultural institutions, because I think increasing the efficiency dividend from 1.25 per cent to 1.5 per cent will do great damage to those cultural institutions.

This is the first time in 22 years that I have spoken against an effective Labor measure and I have done it as the parliament's representative, and due to the experience I have gained on behalf of the parliament, on the National Library of Australia Council. I believe there has to be another way of extracting those savings, whether they can be obtained from elsewhere in the particular portfolio or whether the government of the day can assist those institutions by quarantining certain aspects of their operations from the efficiency dividend. I think this is a matter that transcends party politics. I do not believe it is something that is being done deliberately, but this is one of those instances where, in my humble opinion, one size does not fit all. That is why, in my view, the operation of the efficiency dividend needs to be looked at in relation to these cultural institutions. There is much being done by all those cultural institutions in terms of the preservation and retaining of our history and our heritage. I know that the National Library is going through a digitisation program. It should not be in a situation where there is some evidence before the Senate estimates committee, which I do not want to fully go into—that was on Monday, 21 February 2011—where there were some details about the effect of the efficiency dividend. Those institutions should be handled in a sensitive way and given a level of flexibility and assistance from the government. You see, we can find money. I know the War Memorial engaged in a wonderful political campaign and got a lot more money than they expected but that is not the conduct the National Library, the Archives or the Museum should have to engage in to, in effect, protect their institutions. The War Memorial did all right. The government was never going to win that debate. I would urge my approach on the government and I know it would have the support of the other side. Senator Trood, who finishes up in June, has been an excellent representative on the council and we worked together without playing politics in this regard. I commend my comments to the government in relation to the efficiency dividend. (Time expired)

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This budget confirmed in my mind that the Gillard government has all the look of one of those dodgy companies before they hit the wall. They put out a glossy annual report, they fill it with heroic assumptions and at the same time their debts continue to grow and on the sly they push for an extension to their credit limit. We have seen these companies. You know when it happens that they have been all front and no substance. It is like a company which has never turned a profit, like this government has never turned a surplus. Everything it touches turns to custard yet they tell us to trust them, that the best years are ahead of us. Does this ring true? Does it sound similar? This is what we have seen now for many months, in fact for years. They implore us to ignore their dreadful track record and to believe them, as an article of faith, when they claim they are getting back into the black. It is forever in the never-never; they never talk about the present. You have not heard anybody here today on the other side talk about the massive deficit last year and this year, the increased deficit this year over what was expected and the massive deficit next year. They are talking about some time well into the future. As Alan Kohler, a respected economic commentator said:

Any decent CFO would have been embarrassed by this budget. Revenue forecasts made just six months ago have proved to be way too high, yet spending has gone on regardless. What's more the optimistic forecasts remain just as optimistic.

Mr Kohler is on the money. He fingered this. This is a budget where forecasts have been shown to be rubbery and inaccurate again and again, yet the spending continues at this rate. It has the look of a shonky company that is about to hit the wall. The truth is that this government has all the look of a company in distress. It is acting without direction and it is concealing information. No credible company would deliver an annual report which ignored publicly announced revenue and expenditure measures.

The carbon tax, worth in the order of $11½ billion each year, does just this. No credible company would use accounting tricks to remove major new investments from the balance sheet; yet massive new investments are being made without so much as a cost-benefit analysis. So we see what they have done just with that budget treatment of the NBN, what will cost taxpayers $18.2 billion over the forward estimates—and, of course, a lot later—and we see nothing of it. None of the treatment of this NBN is disclosed. If this government were a publicly listed company, all of this information would have to have been disclosed. It would not be good enough for a CFO to ignore continuous disclosure obligations; yet the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation are happy to do just that.

Under the Corporations Act, companies must disclose any information that would have a material effect on the entity's finances. Think about the NBN. Think of the tens of billions of dollars being spent on the NBN. A lot of what is being done—a lot of the assumptions, a lot of the actions, a lot of the decisions—has a material effect on the entity's finance. All of this is withheld, not disclosed. The Corporations Act—an act brought in by a previous government and supported by this government—would require this disclosure of any publicly listed company, yet actions within the Corporations Act required of public companies are ignored by this government.

Despite the fact that every Australian taxpayer is a government shareholder, Labor does not hold itself to the same standards it expects of business. Such is the level of nondisclosure the government, if it were a publicly listed company, would be investigated for a breach of the Corporations Act. In fact, ASIC provides guidance regarding disclosure obligations and the government could do worse than take a note. This budget is all smoke and mirrors. This government has not met its obligations to support the ethical and effective running of the budget in the way in which it requires the ethical and effective running of companies. None of the standard procedures that are required by the Corporations Act and enforced by ASIC apply to the running of the business of government under this administration. It tells you a lot. They are running blind on the other side. There is, in many respects, an administration which is deluding itself. It is an administration which lacks direction. It is an administration in which the public has lost confidence.

This budget died overnight because it confirmed the view of typical Australians that this government cannot be trusted. What they saw was more of the same. It confirmed the view that has led to the great anxiety that is out there. Why have people across the country in the last 12 months gone from a minus one per cent savings rate to a plus 10 per cent rate? There are unprecedented levels of saving in this country amongst all the mums and dads and others out there. People are anxious. They feel vulnerable. They feel that this government has lost control. They feel that if something happened overseas they would not be prepared. They think that the government is not prepared. This budget confirmed that anxiety. People thought, 'This is just more of the same.' There is no interest in this budget except to the extent that it reinforces people's view that this government is a dysfunctional and dangerous government in many respects.

That 10 per cent increase in savings across the population is a reflection of millions of households who are seeking to live within their means. They feel, despite the great Chinese opportunity that is presented, the way in which we are blessed with resources demanded in the region and the way in which we have got the highest terms of trade in 140 years—despite all of that—that they are burdened by cost of living increases that they are finding insurmountable. They are waking up at night worrying about how they can meet their expenses. They are feeling anxious. They are paying off the mortgage. They are paying off the plastic. They are putting money in the bank. In fact, there has been $75 billion more saved this year by average Australians than is saved under our usual savings rate. People are seeking to live within their means and be in a position to deal with financial stress, yet all the while this government keeps spending, spending, spending; it keeps borrowing, borrowing, borrowing; and it keeps taxing, taxing, taxing.

This is a government that shows no example, is irresponsible, is dysfunctional, has no authority, has no leadership and is creating a crisis of confidence amongst the community. No wonder retail has been under enormous pressure. You take $75 billion out of the normal spending of the Australian community and you put enormous pressure on retail.

While families are trying to live within their means, the government is not. This is exemplified by a couple of numbers in this budget. Before this budget, this government was in the market every day for two years borrowing $100 million a day, competing with small business and mid-sized business, pushing up interest rates, putting enormous pressure on mortgages and, in the process, accumulating more and more debt.

Here is a budget that was supposed to be tough. That is what we got told for weeks: 'This is going to be a tough budget.' Yet, after the budget, it is not $100 million a day that this government is in the market for; it is $135 million a day—pushing up interest rates, denying small and medium sized business money to roll over their commitments, squeezing small business. This is a tofu budget in terms of spending.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Primary Healthcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not as healthy!

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Certainly not as healthy. The gross debt grows massively under this budget. While the government keep spending, the debt keeps going up and up. It grows massively, and they are trying to tell us they are acting responsibly. Then, in the middle of that, we find buried in Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2011-2012 an amendment to the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911. This has never happened before. This sort of amendment has never been buried in an appropriation bill. They want to raise the debt ceiling from $200 billion to $250 billion and eliminate the special circumstances clause.

Again, this has all the smell of a dodgy company before it hits the wall: delusional management team, heroic assumptions, never turned a profit and promises that the best years are ahead of us, yet a growing debt while pushing an extension of the credit limit on the sly. The Treasurer, away from the spotlight, had the Assistant Treasurer creep into this House on budget night after the speech was given and quietly introduce what had the appearance of a standard appropriations bill, but on the sly what this government did was slip in a proposal to lift the Commonwealth debt ceiling by another $50 billion. It has already raised it by $150 billion or $125 billion. It hoped nobody would notice. Well, we have noticed and something needs to be done about it. To that end, I move the following second reading amendment:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"while not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) condemns the government for incorporating in an annual appropriation bill provisions to increase the limit on government borrowings above the total of $200 billion;

(2) recognises that a special case must be made for such a significant increase in borrowing limits and that the government must explain any special circumstances that it believes justify such an increase; and

(3) demands that the parliament be given the opportunity to consider separately and vote on the proposed increases in borrowing limits set out in Part 5 of Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2001-12 and on any occasion on which the government seeks to increase Commonwealth debt above $200 billion.

If this government is going to be reckless with Australia's money and increase debt willy-nilly while everyone is trying to live within their means, the parliament must scrutinise any increase above $200 billion. It must give its approval. The government must come into this House and, instead of removing the clause for special circumstances, it should be required to explain why this borrowing limit has to increase.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I regret that the standing orders require me—it being 1.45—to state that the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the honourable member will have the opportunity of continuing for the balance of his time. The seconding of that amendment will be dealt with at that appropriate time.