Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received letters from the honourable member for Goldstein and the honourable member for Chifley proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46 I have selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the most urgent and important; that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Goldstein, namely:

The urgent need for the Government to deliver budget transparency for the business community.

I therefore call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places

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

Over the last 10 years in office, Labor has never delivered a surplus. In fact, it has racked up a total of $241 billion worth of deficits—or a quarter of a trillion dollars—over those 10 years of wall-to-wall deficits since 1989. This compares with $103 billion of cumulative surpluses over the last 10 years of coalition government. To go from such a surplus to such a deficit and to have nothing to show for it is what Australians find unbelievable and unforgivable. Yet, if you listen to Australia's lightweight Treasurer, you would think all was well. It means that we all have to look beyond Labor's spin and instead look at the facts because Labor has turned sophistry—clever but deceitful arguments—into a fine art. Today I would like to provide just three examples of potentially hundreds of examples of this sophistry. I highlight the deceit of Labor's stimulus claims, I highlight the deceit of Labor's spending claims and I highlight the deceit of Labor's surplus claims.

Let us look at Labor's stimulus claims. A report out today by the Australian National Audit Office once again suggests that the mammoth $87 billion spending splurge failed to boost growth as promised or, as endlessly claimed by our lightweight Treasurer, that the overall stimulus meant that Australia avoided a recession in 2009. The auditors found that the last of the payments under the inspired Greens initiative to create jobs by building bike paths, a key part of the $650 million so-called Jobs Fund, unveiled at the height of the GFC, was not expected to be made until next month. This is almost two years after the funds were meant to have been spent and a full three years since the end of the first quarter of 2009, the quarter that would have confirmed a recession following the negative 0.7 per cent growth quarter at the end of 2008. The Audit Office actually rebuked the government for not ensuring that taxpayer funds delivered the economic gain. A similar audit from 10 July of the separate $550 million regional community infrastructure project found the cash was spent too slowly to ensure the gains first claimed—the sorts of claims we have heard ad nauseam in this place for three years now. We know Treasury confirmed that a massive $10 billion of stimulus money was still to be spent this year, 2011-12. These are the facts as distinct from the spin. By the way, it is all borrowed money which will not be repaid for years and years.

The Orgill report into the $16 billion school funding program showed that spending began several months later than planned and it is still being spent to this day—several years after the GFC. One-ninth of the stimulus was spent towards the end of the one quarter of negative growth, which was the 2008 December quarter. We supported that first stimulus because of the collapse of confidence. In fact we suggested how it should be spent. Despite the nonsense peddled by our lightweight Treasurer, a Treasurer so far out of his depth—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Goldstein will refer to the member appropriately.

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

Despite the absolute nonsense peddled by our Treasurer, a Treasurer so far out of his depth, a Treasurer who claims that the stimulus was the reason Australia avoided a technical recession, almost all the stimulus was spent after the economy was bouncing back, which it was by the end of the first quarter and the start of the second quarter of 2009.

It was the automatic economic stabiliser of the exchange rate and the work of the Reserve Bank which restarted our economy. In the first quarter, you might recall, our exchange rate fell to 60c against the US dollar. We all understand the significance of that now. It is not a surprise that the biggest trade surplus in Australia's history came in that first quarter of 2009—in the middle of the global financial crisis. Then the Reserve Bank cut interest rates—not only cut but slashed. They took 4.25 percentage points off interest rates between September 2008 and April 2009. The stimulus money had not been spent, but by April 2009 the pockets of households had more in them than they had ever had as a result of the 4.25 percentage point cut in interest rates.

The interesting point is that seven months later, in November 2009, when some of the spending was starting to take place, interest rates were back up by 3½ percentage points. Why was that? It appears the Reserve Bank was worried about overspending in the economy. The RBA had reduced interest rates by 4.25 percentage points—that got us going—but by the time the money was being spent out of the government's $87 billion stimulus, they were reducing interest rates due to worries about overspending. These are the facts as distinct from the spin. By the way again, it was all borrowed money and it will not be repaid for years and years.

This deceit has been used to justify borrowing and spending of $87 billion and more. All that has meant is that the government has been in the market borrowing $100 million a day ever since. The effect has been to push up interest rates for households and for small and large businesses; push up our exchange rate; ensure that many small and medium sized businesses have not been able to access finance for love or money, many going to the wall as a consequence; and make Australia highly vulnerable to any—even a reasonably modest—downturn in commodity prices. That vulnerability is due to our huge structural deficit, a deficit which is twice Germany's and even 30 per cent worse than Italy's, would you believe. Yet you never hear our Treasurer talk about structural deficits. Do not lecture us about transparency. The rest of the world, especially Europe, talks—is consumed with concern—about structural deficits. The Treasury are not even allowed to produce a figure for the structural deficit. The words have hardly ever even passed the Treasurer's lips in this place. This is yet more spin.

Let us look at the deceit of Labor's stimulus claims. I could recite a litany of issues which have not been addressed by this government, yet they continue to parade this nonsense that the stimulus had some effect. It has had an effect; it has had a deeply negative effect over the last three years and it is contributing to the huge debt hanging around the neck of every Australian.

Let us look at the deceit of Labor's spending claims. The government's response to every problem has been to tax, borrow and spend, spend, spend and then to do high fives after they have passed each tax and spin it as reform. The government should be paying down debt to position Australia for some of the best and most extraordinary opportunities—across virtually every sector, including manufacturing—which are emerging in the Asia-Pacific. They should be paying down debt to weatherproof Australia's economy against growing volatility on world financial and commodity markets—as the Howard-Costello government did ahead of the global financial crisis. That is why we got through the global financial crisis—we went into it with a $20 billion surplus and with a balance sheet that was $70 billion in the black. That and the automatic stabilisers are why we got through it, not the politically inspired stimulus spending which we are still suffering from and which businesses are still suffering from.

Instead, this Treasurer who is out of his depth has consecutively delivered the four biggest deficits in Australia's history—$27 billion, $55 billion, $48 billion and $37 billion. I will not be surprised if that $37 billion blows out a lot further to help manufacture a surplus for 2012-13. Under Labor, annual spending has grown from $272 billion in 2008 to an estimated $370 billion this year. That is an increase of $100 billion in just 4½ years—$100 billion out of a budget which started at $262 billion. That is a 40 per cent increase. I suppose they would say it has kept pace with inflation, but inflation over those 4½ years was only 13½ per cent.

Despite all that, they are increasing spending again this year. Forget the stimulus for a moment. Let us say that the stimulus was warranted, that it has not brought thousands of small businesses to their knees because they cannot get finance as a result of having to compete against a government borrowing $100 million a day. You would think that, after they had spent the money on the stimulus, they would come back to something like the long-term level of spending, would you not? That is what a household would do if they had put an extension on their house. The next year they would come back to their long-term level of spending. Not this mob.

Under this government the deficit has gone up and up—$87 billion, but they could better that. Now they are at $100 billion more than they were spending 4½ years ago. That is why they never talk about expenditure. This Treasurer is out of his depth and he never talks about expenditure. This government has had two to three per cent more overexpenditure than previous governments as a percentage of GDP every year, on average, for 4½ years. Look at the facts, not the spin. So much for fiscal consolidation. It is a monstrous amount of money, much more than the $87 billion. This government has spent $70 billion over and above that $87 billion they have spent above the long-term spending trend. And they talk about fiscal responsibility. This fiscal consolidation line is, again, more spin.

Labor's third outrageous line of spin is its claims about the surplus. Labor has been boasting for three years about its projected 2012-13 surplus while delivering the biggest deficits in our nation's history. You will hear it again this time—they will brag about a surplus that they have never delivered and try to bury one of the four biggest deficits in our history. In fact, a detailed look at their budget figures shows we have every reason to treat the surplus, if we ever see it, as thoroughly dodgy and thoroughly manufactured. It is a product of accounting tricks to shuffle money and hide spending to keep it off the budget bottom line and engineer the appearance of a surplus next year.

Let me give just one of the many examples that I documented in a speech last Friday to VECCI. Labor accept that their damaging carbon tax poses a threat to Australia's energy security, and in response they will spend over $1 billion this year, 2011-12, to support energy markets through its Energy Security Fund. Jump forward two years, to 2013-14 and 2014-15. They will spend another billion dollars in each of those years. What happened in the middle? What happened to 2012-13? Apparently the carbon tax magically poses no threat to energy security in 2012-13. They are spending 1,000 times less—$1 million, not $1 billion. So it is a billion, one million, a billion, a billion.

I could take you through 34 examples of very obvious cases where they have done this. Again and again they have brought spending forward or they have pushed it back into those two years. Get up and answer those claims. Explain to us why it is a billion, one million and then a billion, a billion to alleviate the threat to business from the carbon tax. This Treasurer has been pulling forward expenditure for two years and now it is being pushed out from 2012-13 into the subsequent two years, and he does not think anyone is looking. A forensic examination of the budget papers shows dozens of examples of this sort of chicanery. It is one reason why Labor's claim to be delivering a wafer-thin surplus in 2012-13 should be taken with a very large grain of salt. All these things add up to tens of billions of dollars. In fact, whatever they come up with in May, the real truth will be tens of billions of dollars more in deficit. This is a government that has practised and perfected the art of spin.

Finally, we have the most notorious example of the government's spin. They have not only shuffled money around but have about $100 billion of items for which there is no identified funding, or they are hidden. They have taken it off the balance sheet or they have not identified funding. There is the Clean Energy Fund, the NBN, the structural black holes inherent in the mining and carbon taxes, the 12 new Australian-designed submarines—all of these add up to an extraordinary amount of money, $100 billion. That is the real $100 billion black hole. Remember on budget night Labor's $100 billion real black hole? Remember Labor's cumulative deficits over the last 10 years in office, including a whopping and shameful deficit this financial year of $37 billion, adding up to a total of over $200 billion? For God's sake, look beyond the spin and look at the statistics. (Time expired)

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The last comment was not worthy of parliament.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Despite all of the allegations of spin, we have just seen more spin than a Shane Warne wrong'un. The member for Goldstein tried to spin his way out of what is a $70 billion black hole, but he will have to do better—and he will have to do better each and every day until the next election. We are going to hold him to account. He might have thought that at the last election he managed to skate through, but we all recall what happened back then. He recalls it really well. In fact, he was scarred by the experience. Most of his colleagues have made sure he was scarred by the experience. The buck-passing exercise that occurred amongst their shadow of an economic team left the blame fairly and squarely at his feet. And he is hurting—he is smarting from it.

I feel a bit sorry for him because he was not the only one to blame. We all remember the budget reply speech that did not turn out to be a budget reply speech—it was more of a flick pass out the back to the shadow Treasurer, who was then given the opportunity at the Press Club a week later to detail where all these savings would be made. He failed abysmally. We then had another flick pass, and the poor old member for Goldstein was left holding the baby. There he was, with the football in his hands, left to account for their black hole. He could not do it. We all remember the 'time to call it quits' press conference, when the press secretary started motioning, in a cutthroat fashion, to bring that painful press conference to an end. The pain and suffering of that experience is not about to come to an end. We are determined to make sure that excruciating, painful experience that the member for Goldstein endured lives on. His own conduct and the conduct of his colleagues have contributed to that. After the election, we saw in all of its ugliness the $11 billion black hole that the opposition went to the election with. It was only exposed because we had a hung parliament and the Independents, whom both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition were negotiating with, determined that it was only fair and reasonable that the costings of both parties be placed on the table and that the sunshine be shone on what was ultimately an $11 billion black hole. Those are 11 billion reasons why those opposite are on that side of the chamber. It hurts. I know it hurts. But the reason it hurts most is that you have not learnt from your mistakes. Instead of going to the next election with an $11 billion black hole, it is looking more and more like a $70 billion black hole. This is not a figure that we have plucked out of the air. It was one of a number of figures that the member for North Sydney shared with his colleagues. In fact, I think the $70 billion was the figure he told the member for Goldstein. He also told a few other colleagues a few other figures—I think 50 and 60. Who knows? There might have even be an 80 in there. Just like the documents that are circulated with little secret markings to identify who the culprit is in the event that they are leaked, the member for Goldstein was caught out in leaking the $70 billion figure, and the member for North Sydney was brought to account in an interview.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Assistant Treasurer will resume his seat. I ask him to be relevant to the matter before the parliament.

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask that you ask the member to withdraw that lie and that accusation that I had leaked—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Goldstein will resume his seat. The member for Goldstein knows he has other forms of the House to use, but the minister will withdraw.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker. The matter before the House is about transparency. I find it extraordinary that the member for Goldstein would call for transparency when nobody has more to fear from transparency than him. What we have seen with the $70 billion black hole—and that is only what they have admitted to—is that there are absolutely no plans to provide those savings at this point in time. In fact, what we saw recently was the so-called commission of audit that is going to be established.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They've got a great track record with auditors.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Chifley reminds me of a very important point, and it goes to the question of auditing. I should have made this point a little earlier. When those opposite went to the last election with an $11 billion black hole that was ultimately exposed, the member for North Sydney came forward and said, 'But all of our costings have been audited.' He used the 'A' word. He said they were all audited. But we saw subsequent to that that, in relation to the costings of the opposition and the so-called audit report which had been provided by accountants, those accountants ended up finding themselves being reprimanded for not having audited properly. In fact, they did not seek to audit those costings, even though the member for North Sydney said that they had been audited.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don't be too tough on them.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Chifley!

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the member for Chifley's concern—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

about me being too tough on the opposition. I have not even begun. So we have this so-called commission of audit. This is what I like to call the chamber of horrors, because it is about locking up all of those nasty cuts that those opposite plan to make. You are just not honest enough to put them before the Australian people before an election. What you do is say: 'We've got it all under control. Trust us. Once we get elected, in the next term of parliament we'll set up this you-beaut commission and it will go through with a fine toothcomb and determine all of those places where appropriate cuts need to be taken.' If you think you need to make cuts, come clean with the Australian people and explain to them which vital services you intend to cut. What sorts of cuts are you going to make to Medicare? What sorts of cuts are you going to make to school funding? What sorts of cuts are you going to make to universities? What sorts of cuts are you going to make to family payments? These are the questions that people in electorates like mine and in communities like mine all around the country deserve to know before they go to the next election. We know about the $70 billion black hole; we just want to know how you intend to fill it. What cuts are you going to make to fill that hole?

It is really interesting that we never actually see both the member for North Sydney and the member for Goldstein running side by side in one of these debates. That is because every time they open their mouths they contradict each other. They contradict each other every time they contribute to a discussion. On this question of whether or not they have costed their policies, the member for North Sydney has an answer for all occasions—the member for Goldstein knows that—but those answers are not always right. The member for North Sydney was asked a question about whether or not the coalition had done the hard yards on costing their policies. He said:

Based on what we know now, we are doing all the costings. All our policies are costed.

The journalist said:

So you have found those savings you were looking for?

And the member for North Sydney said:

Yes, we have found the savings that we were looking for.

That was on 13 March 2012. Just a few days earlier, on 5 March 2012, the member for Goldstein said:

We haven't finalised any of our major policies …

That it was a very productive week of policy work I find hard to believe. Why should we be expected to believe that they managed to do in one week what they have not managed to do in the last four years, and that is develop policies, develop plans, for Australia's future and cost them? They have not done it for four years, so I find it just a little bit difficult to believe that they did it in about a week.

I have to say that I have some sympathy for the member for Goldstein, because I tend to believe him more than I believe the member for North Sydney. When the member for North Sydney says, 'Don't worry, she'll be right, all the policies are costed,' I do not believe it. The coalition have an enormous task ahead of them when it comes to filling that $70 billion black hole. They do not have any plans and, if they do, they are not prepared to share them with the Australian people because they are so scary and so nasty that nobody would ever vote for them. The coalition could come forward and say, 'We'll start to rip out the heart of Medicare,' in the way in which coalition oppositions have always wanted to do, but very rarely have they ever been brave enough to say it.

Dr Stone interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Murray might not get her opportunity to speak if she continues.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Which other essential services are they going to rip the guts out of in order to fund their $70 billion black hole?

I mentioned earlier that the member for North Sydney and the member for Goldstein have all sorts of difficulty in agreeing on basic matters. It is a bit of a problem when they are two of the key figures in the shadow economic team. One issue where there has been a lot of disagreement has been on the question of a surplus. The government's position on a surplus is very clear: we will return the budget to surplus. That will require some difficult decisions, but we will do it because that is what the nation requires. We need to stick to the plans that we have made; they are tough fiscal plans, but, all around the world, capital markets are looking to governments to actually deliver on these plans. We are a government that is intent on doing that and, by doing that, we will keep pressure off interest rates and keep interest rates low for families.

The member for Goldstein was asked whether or not the opposition would deliver a surplus. 'Would they commit to a surplus?' He said, 'Well, it just depends.' The member for North Sydney—not as directly contradictory as he normally is—simply said, 'Maybe.' The Leader of the Opposition said, 'We will do it as quickly as possible.' But then there was poor old Senator Abetz, who did not get the memo. Senator Abetz was out there and said, 'Look, we are not in the business of making extravagant promises.' Promising to return the budget to surplus is not of itself an extravagant promise, but when you are wallowing around in a $70 billion black hole, that is a very ambitious commitment to make; a very extravagant one, to use Senator Abetz's term.

When it comes to the contradictions in their positions on key questions of economic policy—and of course this matter of public importance goes to the importance of transparency in budget policy when it comes to business making the decisions that business needs to make—there are very few areas that have exposed just how flaky the policy approach of the opposition has been on economic policy quite as much as the question of tax cuts for business.

We have seen them cutting each other up over the last couple of weeks. Talk about poor judgment! Who was the brains trust that decided that they were going to lead the Liberal Party off this cliff? Who decided that they were going to come into this place and vote against tax cuts for business? If you go through the Hansard, you will see that just about every person on that side of the House came into this place and professed their 'unabashed support' for businesses large and small—'generators of jobs', 'creators of wealth'; but not worthy of a tax cut. When it comes to delivering a tax cut for them, they want to talk about how tough it is out there in the business environment. They talk the economy down, but when it comes to delivering them tax relief they come into this place and vote against it. To their eternal shame they will do that, and each and every one of them will have to go back to their electorates and explain why they voted against tax relief for the businesses in their electorate.

On the question of business tax cuts, just last year the Leader of the Opposition said, firstly, 'The government should keep its commitments,' and, secondly, 'We support company tax cuts.' But then, just a couple of days ago, the member for North Sydney was asked the same question about whether or not they would support a cut in the company tax rate. The journalist asked, 'Are you signalling that when this comes to the House you will support a cut in company tax?' The member for North Sydney said, 'No, No, No, No, No,' and just for further effect he said, 'We have said no.' Six noes. Not one, not two, not three; six noes. When it comes to cutting tax, they say no.

In fact, when it comes to any good idea proposed by this government, they say no. The only thing they will ever say yes to is a big fat tax cut to the likes of Clive Palmer. We have seen over the last couple of days—and in particular in the last 24 hours—some extraordinary comments from Mr Palmer. You would have thought there would be a handful of people in the Liberal Party sensible enough to come forward and at least acknowledge that perhaps it was a little bit of overreach. Talk about conspiracy theories: the CIA!

The only CIA that the Australian people have to worry about is Clive's influence agency. Those on the other side seem rather beholden to it. They want to give a big fat tax cut to the millionaire miners but not to the Australian— (Time expired)

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Probably no government since Federation have spent so much time with personalised attacks on an opposition rather than actually explaining their policy and their extraordinary debasement of Australia's opportunities and the futures of our kids.

Andrew Robb, the shadow finance minister, has just observed in the press today that a staggering 73 per cent of finance minister Penny Wong's press releases are attempts at diversionary attacks on the opposition leader, the shadow Treasurer and the shadow finance spokesman. There is something going on. There is something not smelling right in Denmark, as they say.

The Australian public is seriously sick of Labor's endless negativity and shrill attempts to distract everyone from what they are doing with the economy. Unfortunately the public is not unwise and they are experiencing the impact of the government's debt levels that are now afflicting all Australians—some $6,000 for every man, woman and child. We have young people now in despair and not able to pursue careers that they imagined would be something for them. We have empty shops and retail confidence at rock-bottom levels. We in fact have an economy that should be bubbling along, that should be in great shape, but that is now looking pretty bad. As our first speaker, the shadow finance minister, said, our economy unfortunately has structural deficits rivalling the poor men of Europe.

Labor is desperate to distract the public and paper over the fact that it has converted the coalition government's legacy of no government debt—$70 billion in net assets and a $20 billion surplus—into a staggering $130 billion net debt, with interest payments on average of about $6.5 billion annually. Under Labor, productivity has slowed, growth has stalled and only a few new jobs have been created. We are in a serious mess. None of Labor's debt can be paid off until it manages to produce a surplus, something it has not been able to conceive. It will have to be a very decent surplus to seriously tackle Labor's debt. On the current prediction for what the Treasurer, Mr Swan, calls a wafer-thin surplus, it would take over 100 years to pay off Labor's debt.

As I said, our structural deficit is a serious problem. We do not hear about that. I wonder if Mr Swan still believes that all we have to do is pray to China. 'China will save us,' he says, 'We are such a lucky country.' I doubt the Treasurer is sleeping well at night, now that China has downgraded this year's growth forecast to well below its average for the last 10 years. This government has hung all of its hopes for getting away with its profligate spending on rivers of gold continuing to flow out of the mines of Australia to feed China's insatiable demand for new goods and services.

Unfortunately it is not that simple. China's growth is dependent on a strong performance in its own export markets as well as in its domestic demand. Europe's debt crisis obviously affects China's exports and that in turn translates into slower demand for what they want to buy from us. So we have to be smarter than simply saying, 'Spend, spend, spend—China will fix us.' If only we had a government that was more disciplined and had some depth of understanding of interacting factors, causes and effects—those sorts of factors that influence a nation's prospects. Instead, in the last four years we have had four of the country's biggest deficits.

We have a government, typical of all previous Labor governments, that has overspent taxpayers' hard earned cash on hair brained and/or totally mismanaged schemes. Labor has wasted not just millions but billions of dollars and it continues to borrow about another $100 million per day to fund its unstoppable government spending. We have a huge Public Service administrating more government red tape and regulation than this nation has ever seen. The coalition will reduce that Public Service.

Take the pink batts. Everyone in Australia knows what I mean by those two words. Mention those two words to ordinary Australians and they either guffaw or groan. This program must go down as one of the most misguided, mismanaged and deadly that any government has ever cooked up in any country. Labor spent more than $1 billion to put the batts into hapless people's roofs and over $1 billion to take them out again when too many houses caught fire. You can understand why this government would also want to create smoke screens to hide the fact that they spent over $16 billion on new school buildings. But unless you were one of the lucky few in the independent school system you did not get what you wanted or needed. You could not employ locals and the value for money was just a joke.

Meanwhile, on Labor's watch, we are now just about at the bottom of the OECD league tables in terms of literacy and numeracy improvements and teacher capacity. It is not just about a new BER hall, sadly, and this government does not get that. They think a website will fix it up: the new NAPLAN and My School websites. Sadly, that is a cruel joke as well. Imagine the cruelty of this government's intentions when it identified the need for a national disability insurance scheme—something the coalition also understands the need for—but did not and cannot put a single red cent on the table to turn it into reality. Not a red cent. But they have put it out there as though it is going to happen. I have had people with disabilities in my electorate saying: 'Isn't this fantastic! At last, a national insurance scheme.' I say, 'Look I'm terribly sorry; it's a great idea but they've got no money.'

Imagine a government that introduces a paid parental leave scheme which is the cheapest and nastiest scheme you will find anywhere in the developed world. On top of it being the cheapest and nastiest it denies these new mothers any superannuation at the time of their leave. So the poverty of older women in Australia continues—no superannuation continuation in their working lives. Imagine a country that slaps a new national food plan on the table, very proudly, acknowledging that globally and especially in our region there will be enormous additional demand for fine food. At the same time it proposes to take away much of the key means of production in the Murray-Darling Basin—the water—from farmers in what is the largest food-producing zone in Australia.

They have slashed Customs and Biosecurity funding as well and they have slashed the research and development effort that is going to help farmers innovate and meet that global food task. It is cruel and it is absurd. No wonder there is now a crisis in confidence in one of the nation's biggest employers, the food and farm production manufacturing sector. Applications to do agricultural science courses have crashed, universities have halved their course offerings and skilled and graduate jobs in agriculture go begging. People have basically given up on this government. Then there is the Gillard government's $500 million carbon farming initiative. There are doubts now that it can ever deliver real emissions reductions and the scheme will be too costly and too bound with red tape for most to even bother about it.

The Greens have a lot to answer for. They are a key cause of the urgent smoke-and-mirror campaigns of the Labor government. With the Greens, Labor are trying to cover up the economic troubles their marriage has helped to create, and the vulnerabilities they cannot understand or can no longer respond to. The carbon tax was the price of the keys to the Lodge. We all understand that, but we are the laughing stock of the world. Other countries like us acknowledge the need to live in a carbon constrained world but no one else intends to smash their competitiveness, to beggar their people by destroying jobs—by closing down businesses or shrinking them—because the cost of their energy will be beyond any reasonable price.

All of us on the opposition benches are closely in touch with our big businesses and also our small businesses, which are the generators of wealth and opportunity in our economy. We acknowledge the risks these businesses take. Unlike Labor, we applaud when they prosper and grow the wealth and productivity of the nation. We acknowledge that these businesses are now in great fear of the impacts of risings costs, as they see their power bills surge in anticipation of 1 July. The Murray Goulburn Cooperative, Australia's biggest dairy company, has worked out it will cost them, per annum, over $15 million a year extra. All of this will be passed onto their farmers, because the big supermarket duopoly laughs when they suggest putting up the prices of dairy products on the shelves. This is the sort of country we are now living in, a country where Labor's spin gets desperately louder and shriller every day. We just had an example from the previous speaker—attack the man, attack the woman but do not for heaven's sake let anyone look closely at what is going on with the figures, the finances, the debt and the deficit. (Time expired)

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You get to hear a lot of crazy things in public life and in the sweep of public affairs. Only a few days ago we heard that apparently the CIA in tandem with the environmental movement is working tirelessly to shut down our Australian coal industry.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Shame on them!

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought—exactly—I had heard it all, Minister, and then I saw this MPI. This is an MPI in which those opposite are calling for us to have budget transparency. I am going to hear the mafia call for law and order campaigns next.

These people on the other side are incapable of demonstrating what they are able to do in terms of even meeting a surplus, even being able to show where they could make savings.

Mr McCormack interjecting—

Member for Riverina, you can rest safe at night. Can I tell you, member for Riverina, that those opposite have been working very hard. In fact, the member for Goldstein, as your shadow minister for finance, is working night and day to find those $70 billion in savings. And do you know what? After all that painstaking research and all that time at night, he has had his eureka moment: $50 million in savings in government consultancies—$50 million down, $69,950 million of savings to go. Thank you for your great work in identifying savings. What a joke. We have had the fastest fiscal consolidation in four decades, and the best they can do is reach for that old chestnut of government consultancies where they reckon they can save $50 million.

You know what? I will be happy to compare our record with the record of those opposite any day. We inherited inflation at just under four per cent, now under three per cent. With regards to total tax take, when those opposite were in power tax as a percentage of GDP was close to 24 per cent; now it is 21 per cent and headed lower. Regarding interest rates, there were only six months of the 11 years that they were in office during which it got as low as 4.25 per cent. Regarding spending, the member for Goldstein lectures us about spending. Nominate a year in which those opposite were able to cut government spending. One year; just one year—nominate it. You cannot. In 11 years, they were unable to reduce real spending, and in fact it grew in the last five years—

Mr Tehan interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Wannon is warned!

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When those opposite were in government, spending grew by close to four per cent every year. It has only grown by an average of 1.5 per cent a year under this government. The comparison is huge. If you look at it, we have had higher growth than many countries who had to go through the GFC; lower inflation; and lower unemployment. We are able to demonstrate a record that is way better than those opposite.

We have been asked to be transparent. Those opposite claim that apparently—I saw this the other day—they have 40 of 49 policy areas completed. Can you just name one—and not something small? Name us something that you have been able to achieve? You have said you are not bringing Work Choices back but where is your actual IR policy? You have now been for years working your way away from the claim that you are bringing back Work Choices, and the minute the business community sticks a stick in the cage, you suddenly find your courage and say: 'Oh no. We're bringing in flexibility.' Everyone in the general community knows that when you are talking about flexibility you are only talking about one thing.

The talk about transparency and they are unable, for example, to meet this simple challenge. Last weekend economist Stephen Koukoulas, ex Citibank, a one-time prime ministerial economics adviser, tweeted simply this:

The Govt publish its budget data twice a year: Can you publish your costings & program cuts? Just once?

He tweeted that to Joe Hockey, and Joe Hockey got uptight and responded to me by saying: 'That's unfair. You guys can't even get board appointments right.' I am thinking: you get back to me when you can work out how to appoint an auditor and then you can lecture me on how that should work.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Get a catering company!

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Or catering companies; that is right. The member for Moreton rightly points out when they want to challenge immigration department figures, they go to the caterers. Who are the chief immigration officers on Nauru? The guys from MasterChef?

They are unable to stand up to the challenge. We are being challenged to be transparent. Let us be transparent about the decision-making processes of the economic team opposite. Laurie Oakes back in February talked about the economic decision making of those opposite. He said:

In August last year, as the Coalition's expenditure review committee looked for potential savings, there was a leak.

A news report claimed that documents from the so-called 'razor gang'—

this is the one that works hard to find $50 million in savings to meet a $70 billion target—

revealed a warning by Hockey that $70 billion needed to be found.

In fact, well-placed sources say, the documents did not contain an overall savings target at all. Hockey provided it to shadow ministers when he spoke to them in person.

And—here's the devious bit—he gave each of his colleagues a different figure.

This from those opposite—there is trust aplenty in those opposite.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It might have been the CIA!

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right. The member for Hunter, the Chief Government Whip, points out rightly that it was the CIA perhaps. But those opposite are calling for transparency, yet even within their own ranks, within their so-called 'razor gang, they do not trust each other and hide real figures and are unable to show how they will get to surplus.

In fact, in early February they all took a big step back from even committing themselves to a surplus. In one week we had the member for Warringah, the member for Goldstein and the member for Curtin all taking a big step back as to when they would actually put a surplus together. We have committed to that process. They have been unable to, and their $70 billion hole has not been made any easier by their refusal to support the minerals resource rent tax. The reason is this: opposition policy is being shaped in the shadow of a magnate, and that magnate is Clive Palmer. When I think of Clive—our national treasure—I wonder where all the good billionaires have gone. Look at the quality of billionaires overseas. Bill Gates, former CEO of Microsoft, is worth $61 billion and has donated between $28 billion and $34 billion to charity. He has his Giving Pledge, a moral commitment of America's richest families. Billionaires in the US will donate at least 50 per cent of their fortunes to charitable causes of their own choosing. Michael Bloomberg is worth $19.5 billion and has signed up to the Giving Pledge; David Rockefeller—I know that they do not like Rockefeller opposite—is worth $2.2 billion and has signed up; Ted Turner, founder of CNN, is worth $2.1 billion; Boone Pickens, $1.1 billion; Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, is worth $44 billion and has promised to give away a full 99 per cent of his wealth. Then we turn back here to our home-grown billionaires. Over there they are building betting futures for others. Over here they are doing their best to wreck the A-League. What a contrast. That is what our billionaires do. Over there they donate half their wealth and here they put on tinfoil hats with antennas saying 'Take me to your magnate'. This is what we get from our billionaires: 'The CIA and environmentalists in an unholy alliance to destroy the coal industry'. What has happened to our home-grown billionaires? Why am I so concerned?

Mr Tehan interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Wannon was warned. He will remove himself from the chamber under standing order 94(a).

The member for Wannon then left the chamber.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There you go. Goodbye and take that tin foil with you.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Chifley will restrain himself.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. It is because I am concerned. There is a huge influence of Clive Palmer.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Chifley does need to be slightly relevant in his last 56 seconds if he can.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is about transparency of the budget process. Those opposite have said they will repeal the MRRT and will be doing so because they have got someone who, since 2004-05, has donated a total of $3.7 million to the coalition.

Mr McCormack interjecting—

Wait for it, Member for Riverina: compare the $3.7 million Clive Palmer has given to your side with the $150,000 he has given us. Those opposite, who are committed to repealing the MRRT, are unable to be transparent in the way they operate and are unable to determine or show us how he influences policy, and they then lecture us about transparency. It is a joke. (Time expired)

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The admirable Assistant Treasurer—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Dawson should have listened earlier when I said that people will use appropriate titles or they will not be heard.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Assistant Treasurer and the member for Chifley talked about Clive Palmer and the CIA. I do not know about the CIA but, gee, I wish I had one of those memory erasers that the Men in Black have because I cannot get back the 25 minutes of my life that was just wasted listening to the previous member's speech, but at least I can forget about it.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance, which is:

The urgent need for the Government to deliver budget transparency for the business community.

The words of those opposite might rubbish billionaires but their economic policies rubbish families and small businesses right across this nation. Transparency is definitely needed. It is not just an urgent matter for business; it is an urgent matter for the community and the country as a whole.

Small business is the backbone of this country. It is small business that finds itself at the pointy end of some of the worst policies that any Australian government has ever produced. When small business is hurting, families are hurting. Right now small businesses are at a loss as to what the future holds for them. They see a government that is out of control. They see a government that is going out of its way to destroy the economy, industries, jobs and, quite honestly, families. They see a government desperately trying to hide—like a bunch of school kids who just broke the vase—the evidence, trying to hide the broken pieces of the economy and sweeping the evidence of their own recklessness and stupidity straight under the carpet. Manufacturing a network of deceit and fabrication to cover its tracks is not the answer.

The business community needs certainty and not the certainty that is being peddled by this government, not the certainty of tax, tax, tax and more tax, for that is certain failure. The best predictor of future behaviour for this government is its past behaviour. We look and see what this government has done. It is desperately trying to hide all of these failures, trying to sweep them under the rug and trying to hide the cost blowouts. In so many different programs it is trying to hide the waste, trying to hide the record budget deficits and trying to hide the record debt. But the problem is that there is no rug big enough to hide all that because it needs a bigger and bigger rug every day.

Remember when the government said the 2011-12 budget deficit would be $12 billion? That was just 12 months ago. Then it was revised to $22.6 billion. The budget deficit has almost doubled in a year.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's worse than that.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You think it would not get any worse than that, as the member for Herbert said, but now somehow the most recent budget update puts it at $37 billion. Is it even possible that anyone in the world—the world's greatest Treasurer, for instance—could be that incompetent with a budget forecast? Maybe not, because the 2011-12 year is another write-off for this Labor government and another write-off for this nation. It is another Labor deficit to add to the collection. If you are going to stuff it up in the great old Labor tradition, you might as well go all the way; you might as will push as many costs under that rug as you can. You might as well take some costs out of future budget deficits and stick them under the rug too.

What we have is a smoke and mirrors situation going on in this government in a desperate bid to produce a budget surplus, just one. We are hoping you can get it, guys, just one. For the benefit of those of us who have never seen a Labor surplus in our lifetime, such as the member for Longman on this side, let us see if you can get it or at least get another rug to cover up what will turn out to be another deficit for as long as it takes to get to an election.

While the government is trying to manufacture their first surplus, we have minister after minister come into this place to justify their economy-destroying policies, the ones we were told would not happen—there will be no carbon tax under this rug. The carbon tax cannot be hidden any longer. We have seen the Labor Party and the Greens constructing this elaborate new paradigm that is supposed to stop a tax from being a tax. They try to justify the carbon tax with the illusion that there will be this wealth of green jobs. So where are these green jobs? Ask Spain how they are going to get all their green jobs and how they are going with that. Go down to Immigration and ask them, because that is where they are—all the young unemployed are coming to Australia because the whole green job thing did not quite work out for them.

In addition to the green jobs furphy, the government have tried to invent this new economy. That is because they stuffed up the old one. You can only talk about a new economy for so long because eventually people stop and realise, 'Hang on, this is just the old economy except there are fewer jobs and we are worse off.' The government try to dress up their carbon tax as the clean energy future, but what business really wants is for government to be the ones who come clean—to tell the truth. Business wants to know where they truly stand, not where the government can make people think they stand. And if they are going to come clean on the carbon tax they should do the same with the mining tax. Let us not try to justify this bad tax by selling it as something that it is not. The government cannot keep saying to businesses that they are spreading the wealth around to every postcode, in that dull voice that the Treasurer says it in. Giving a one per cent tax cut to companies is not spreading the wealth around; it is only giving a little break to companies. The government might be able to con a lot of the people like that but not small businesses.

Most businesses are small and it is small businesses that are more likely than not—70 per cent of them, in fact—to be sole traders or partnerships, not companies. They will not be the beneficiaries of this spreading of the wealth, but they will be the ones paying the extra three per cent in superannuation that the government desperately is trying to say it is doing. What a disgrace and what an affront to businesses around this nation for the government to say that it is the one creating the super when it is actually businesses doing it. That is not spreading wealth, it is increasing the burden even more. It should not try and justify the mining tax by telling us that it is going to fund things that it is clearly not going to fund. As a bit of a segue here, it is incredible that we had the Leader of the House give this statement today. He is now the minister for urban rorts: snout-in-the-trough Albanese rorting roads funding right into his own electorate. But we had the Leader of the House—

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order that goes to relevance and misleading of the House. I know you were busy at the time, but it is about a reflection on the Leader of the House by the member for Dawson.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not hear the reflection. Someone was getting my attention to my side, so I cannot rule on that, but if the member for Dawson would assist the chamber—

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. We had the Leader of the House here yesterday telling us the mining tax was going to fund the Peak Downs Highway, an important project for the region that I live in but, according to the budget, the work will actually start before the mining tax revenue kicks in. He goes on to say that the mining tax is going to fund the Mackay ring road study, which has already been done at a cost of $10 million. So the government cannot claim the mining tax is going to fund something that has happened in the past, unless the minister has a TARDIS. I am eagerly waiting next week's episode to see if the mining tax is going to fund the Sydney Harbour Bridge; it is only eighty years old.

The only way the government could create a good economy is to start with great one. You only have to look at Australia's gross debt, which is third only to Iceland and Ireland, to see how they have managed to do that. Imagine what a real government could have done from the position this economy was in when Labor took over. For a start, there was money in the bank, not a record debt. Thanks to Labor's reckless spending, Australia is now forced to pay $6 billion a year in interest on the debt they have created. Coincidently it is estimated the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which we support, would cost around $6 billion a year to implement. Labor is trying to create this illusion that it is going to fund the NDIS and the coalition is not. Well, if Labor supported it it would be in its budget this year. On this side of the House we support the NDIS, and we have the ability to fix the economy so that it can become a reality. In asking for transparency we ask for truth, because we have had a very, very long time where we have had exactly the opposite from this government.

Laura Smyth (La Trobe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on this matter of public importance. I am a bit astounded that this is an MPI that is being put by those opposite, because I would not have thought that one from the opposition benches would be seeking to raise matters about either transparency or concern about the business community at a time when two very significant issues are facing them. When they come into this place they are clearly opposing the interests of those they repeatedly propose to represent by opposing tax cuts for companies and for small business. They have shown themselves to be very emphatic on those points. It is extraordinary that they are coming in today and putting forward an MPI which professes to support the business community. And in terms of transparency, it is just as extraordinary that they are here today talking about economic transparency when the hot topic at the moment is exactly what the opposition has committed itself to in terms of budget cuts and exactly what this new commission of audit constitutes in terms of the opposition's policies.

The opposition have for almost 18 months gone about this place calling themselves an alternative government, trying at every opportunity to find a seat on the government benches of this place. Yet, when they are asked to provide very basic details about their economic policies, very basic details about costings and very basic details of what they do stand for, they go back to being the opposition. They go back to being not accountable and they go back to indicating that they will reveal this in due course, that it is somewhere off in the distance and that at some point in the future they will provide information for people to be able to put their finger on what the opposition represents in terms of job cuts and cuts to health and education budgets—all of those things that we inevitably see whenever any conservative government comes to power. I am certainly very familiar with that because we have recently been the beneficiaries of the Baillieu government in Victoria. We see very clearly that while in opposition members of conservative parties are very reluctant to provide specifics about their economic policies and to provide appropriate details about what their priorities are, and when they get into government, as is the case in Victoria with Ted Baillieu, they sit on their hands, they do nothing and they allow the state to stagnate, or they decide to slash and burn. We have certainly seen that in previous governments at a federal level and very certainly at a state level, in my state. So it is extraordinary that today we are being invited by those opposite to talk about issues of transparency and support for the business community when they so obviously fail repeatedly on both counts.

I am however very pleased to speak about this government's track record of transparency in relation to our economy and in relation to our support for the business community. I am somewhat disappointed to have heard the member for Goldstein, who brought this matter before the House, reflect on the events of the global financial crisis. So regularly as individual members, when we go to our electorates and see the benefits of construction projects in schools and housing developments, we hear of the benefits for ordinary people as a result of the stimulus spending put in place by this government. We see the practical effects of support for jobs in our own communities as a result of the very real policy commitments this government made during the global financial crisis.

It is extraordinary that the member for Goldstein stands repeatedly in this place and pretends that it did not occur. We have heard that throughout the three contributions of the members who have spoken from the opposition benches this afternoon. We have heard denial of the global financial crisis as a reality which affected the world several years ago and is continuing to be felt by countries around the world. We saw denial of the benefits of the Building the Education Revolution by the member for Murray. I can confirm that the 68 schools in my electorate which have been the beneficiaries of this government's economic responsibility at a very difficult time are very thankful for the commitments we made—the $110 million spent across my electorate.

We heard denial from the member for Dawson about the financial impacts of natural disasters. He, as a member who has been directly affected by natural disasters, should know very well about the economic impacts that people in his own electorate must have felt and must continue to feel as a result. He must know that there are realities for our economy which must be faced as a result of those natural disasters. So it is utterly ludicrous for the people who have stood here this afternoon, seemingly talking about transparency and support for the business community, to be denying the realities of pressures being felt by our economy and denying the reality that this government is responding to those financial pressures.

It is absolutely extraordinary that the opposition are speaking about transparency and accountability, because we have heard their proposals for economic transparency and accountability. I must say they leave rather a lot to be desired in relation to the most recent extraordinary plan about an audit commission. This is seemingly the way they are going to recover from the $70 billion black hole they have announced by various means will result in the event that they find themselves in office.

The reason I and others on this side of the House are incredulous about this so-called 'audit constitution' is that the understanding of members of the opposition and indeed the shadow Treasurer of what it means to conduct an audit and what an audit represents was made pretty clear at the last election. Seemingly audited accounts were revealed to have an $11 billion hole in them. We know that on ABC in August 2010 the shadow Treasurer said that their accounts had been audited. He said:

You know what? If the fifth-biggest accounting firm in Australia signs off on your numbers it is a brave person to start saying there are accounting tricks. I tell you it is audited.

Apparently they said that there were savings of $11.5 billion that the coalition had identified as part of their audit. This audit is an extraordinary thing because we now know that not only has it been revealed through appropriate scrutiny of those accounts that there was indeed an $11.5 billion hole in this supposed audit but that the ICA's appeal tribunal found that the audit the coalition had organised was not an audit at all. So industry bodies are aware of exactly what they mean by an audit. The Australian public and the Australian Treasury are certainly aware of what they mean by an audit. So in terms of transparency the opposition have a little bit of form about what it is to conduct an audit. They have a bit of form about whether or not their audit can be relied on.

So it is with incredulity that all of us on this side hear about an audit commission which they propose to set up to be able to identify cuts to services, cuts to budgets—the inevitable things that conservatives do when they come to office. All Australians have come to know that. They are certainly coming to know that in my state. I expect that when the appropriate scrutiny is applied to those opposite, their audit will reveal itself to be exactly what it was at the last election—a sham.

By contrast, we have been absolutely clear with the Australian people about our support for small business and for the business community in general. It could not be clearer that those opposite stand for undermining the business community generally and undermining small business that they so heartily profess to support when they come to this place, when they are out on the hustings, when they are back in their electorates indicating that they have done their very best to support small business, despite the fact that they inevitably will vote against cuts to taxes for small businesses and they vote against company tax cuts. We heard today from the Treasurer about the practical realities of what the coalition's proposals for company tax and small business tax reform that we are undertaking, and that they are opposing, would mean. We know that they oppose the tax cut for companies. In fact, they want to increase company tax by 1.5 per cent. We know that this means an estimated $392 million cost to the manufacturing sector. We know that it means an estimated $270 million cost to the retail sector. Quite frankly, if you are going to come into this place and put up a matter of public importance about support for the business community, it would be worthwhile not adding to their costs through your public policies. This is an extraordinary motion and one which should not be supported by the House.

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this matter of public importance about the urgent need for government to deliver budget transparency to the business community. Let me start by talking about the fact that transparency requires honesty, integrity and openness. I think the Australian public demands that of us. When I walk through my electorate and meet with small business owners and with other people, they ask why we do not put things up front for them so that they can understand the implications when it comes to the financial management of their businesses, including the financial management of their own homes. It is not hard to provide numerous examples of gross ineptitude by the government in demonstrating budget transparency.

If I were to do an analysis of all the answers that the Treasurer gives in this chamber to questions around budget and fiscal management, then I would find that there would be very little in the way of transparent answers, as opposed to attacks on the opposition and attacks on individuals—individuals who create the job opportunities for other workers which the government says that they represent but that we forget. That is a factor within any economy.

There are many facets to the economy that are important to the way this country develops its wealth and the way it supports the families and communities that we have been elected to represent. It would not hurt to have some transparency. It would not hurt to have the detail so that people can make judgments. There is a need to promote transparency so as to improve consumer confidence and assist the business community to effectively plan for the future. Just look at this week: we have had the biggest tax on our most successful industry passed by the Senate and yet the companies affected do not know the full detail. Today, when the Treasurer was asked what the arrangements with the big three companies were, he was not able to provide transparency around what has been negotiated and around what their contribution will be to the tax.

We have the carbon tax coming out on 1 July this year and still we do not know the final detail. I have companies in my electorate that say, 'Can you provide any of the detail that will roll out with this so that we can consider what the costs will be, what our decisions will be about the provision of services, what the decisions will have to be about our financial viability and about other arrangements we have in place?' I was talking to a builder who tells me that he now has on the bottom of all his invoices a reference to the fact that his price will be affected by the carbon tax and its implications. How can the Treasurer claim to be back in the black in this financial year's budget when he does not include future policy costings that the Gillard government is committed to but does include costings for policies that do not have the detail in the legislation and have not had the proper modelling released?

However, what the Treasurer can take claim for is creating uncertainty in our business community. How can our business and industrial sectors make decisions to address the compliance requirements? The flow-on effects of these taxes are huge and our business community does not yet know the detail. Let us look at some facts here. Labor have consecutively delivered the four biggest deficits in Australian history: $27 billion, $55 billion, $48 billion and $37 billion. The numbers do not lie. Labor say that this financial year is different. They say it will be back in the black. They say they have changed their ways, but we all know that a leopard does not change its spots. They say they have realised that pulling out Australia's credit card at every opportunity is not the definition of being fiscally conservative.

It has taken them a while, yet if you look at the information the Treasurer provides in the budget you will notice there are no ongoing financial commitments to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. As a public servant, I used to rely on the portfolio statements and the budget statements to forward plan in the work that I did. When I look through some of the portfolio statements now, I find there are gaps or I find there are elements of the financial thinking of the Treasurer and the relevant minister that puzzle me—their thinking is not reflected in the transparency that is required in order for people to make business decisions. Nor is there any mention of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation which is, in total, a hundred billion dollar black hole in the budget. Not to mention, within that one hundred million, the debacle that is the National Broadband Network. A lack of planning, a lack of consultation and, ultimately, a lack of transparency has plagued this government since former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd formed government in 2007.

I was at a breakfast just two mornings ago where the people who I was sitting with said that at one time there used to be green papers and white papers, which allowed the private sector or the business sector to provide input into the process before it became entrenched in a bill that was debated in this chamber. They had the opportunity to argue for a reduction in red tape. They had the opportunity of reflecting on the impact on them and on their business. We no longer do that; I have not seen evidence of that for some time. I hope that it is a practice that trickles back in. The coalition would certainly be committed to a process that engages those affected.

Accounting tricks to shuffle money and hide spending so as to keep it off the budget bottom line contribute to the government's projected surplus, which is one-tenth the size of the deterioration in this year's budget deficit over the six months between last year's May budget and the November mid-year economic and financial outlook. The biggest example of this mess is the government's Energy Security Fund. The government recognises that the carbon tax poses a threat to Australia's energy security. In response, it will spend just over one thousand million dollars this year to support energy markets. It will also do this in the 2013-14 and again in the 2014-15 financial years. But according to this government the carbon tax poses no threat to our energy security, because the government are spending less than $1 million dollars on it. You would think that if the government took the implementation of the carbon tax seriously—which, by the way, is coming into effect in the 2012-13 financial year—they would fund the Energy Security Fund at an amount equivalent to the other three financial years. The government only care about their promise to have a surplus next year and they put this above the security of our energy industry. You cannot play political games with our industries. Businesses cannot cope with this uncertainty and lack of transparency much longer. Businesses within Hasluck want certainty.

How can a small business plan for the future, when they do not know what the cost of the carbon tax will be on their bottom line? Small businesses are already struggling with many of the impositions placed on them over the last three years. Small business owners in Hasluck often say to me that they cannot make ends meet at the moment and cannot budget for the carbon tax because they do not know what the flow-on cost will be. We still do not know who the 500 companies are that will pay the carbon tax. How will flow-on costs be measured? There are many questions within the scope of fiscal and financial planning and within the budgetary cycle that need to be transparent to all those affected. When my colleague the member for Moreton has his turn to speak, I will be interested to hear what he will say with respect to transparency.

The Treasurer still refuses to tell the Australian public the real story about the full costings of all the associated measures surrounding this new tax. He should also explain what he promised the big three mining companies. This tax imposes a significant new administrative burden on all mining companies, even if they are below the government's threshold for paying the tax.

Wouldn't it be an incredible situation for the Australian public and the voters if they had honesty and transparency? They could see and understand the bottom line, they could see clearly and understand what was contained within the budget. Elements of the budget would not be hidden or taken out of the bottom line and they could be fully conversant with where the carbon tax sits in the context of the total budget. We expect it of financial planning and of businesses. They expect from this government and this Treasurer a clear indication of what the financial implications will be for them and for the work they have planned that will develop the Australian economy to a position of strength within a global society and economy.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is very interesting to hear from the opposition about budget transparency. Indeed, it is not their strong suit. At the last election the government had many policies out there, all costed and transparent, while the opposition turned up with no costings whatsoever. Then, at the last minute, they decided they would get a company to do it. They would not put it to Treasury for costing. They put it to a firm that, it turned out, was fined for professional misconduct. So we see that the coalition's commitment to transparency is not that great.

This government will always cost its policies. We will always be responsible economic managers. This has been shown many times in the way that we go about our business. We have shown, even during the financial crisis, that we act in a fiscally responsible way. As we recover from the global financial crisis, once again it has taken this government to budget the largest fiscal consolidation ever in this country's history. It has taken this government to act to support business.

In contrast we see that those on the other side have not learnt from their mistakes of the last election, but continue to rack up potential debt with uncosted policies. We see a $70 billion black hole from which they keep promising things, whether it is a superannuation increase or their climate change policy, which will cost the average household if they end up imposing the $1,300 tax. They have not been clear about where this money is coming from.

When we look at delivering budget transparency for the business community and for the nation, we on this side of the House have been doing a very good job. This is in sharp contrast to the coalition, which have provided no transparency on where their $70 billion in cuts will come from to fill their black hole. The opposition clearly refused to put their costings to Treasury. I ask: what have they got to hide? Their policies depend upon who speaks for the opposition. Some have said they are done and dusted and have been put into the drawer ready to be pulled out at election time, but others say that no final policy exists. The shadow finance minister said that no policies are ready to go. It is hard to know which of these is true. It is certainly not transparent.

To conclude, on this side of the House the government has worked on providing certainty for business, on providing budget transparency and on acting in the interests of businesses. On the other side of the House there is disarray, uncertainty and no transparency when it comes to budgetary matters. I look forward to the opposition's budget reply when we come back here in May. I hope they can show some transparency about where their cuts will come from.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The discussion is now concluded.