Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Treasurer's statement on radio this morning that Labor's plan to increase Australia's debt limit from $250 billion to a record $300 billion is 'no big deal'? Does the Prime Minister regard as 'no big deal' putting $50 billion more on our nation's credit card?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What the Deputy Prime Minister was referring to this morning was the debt cap changes that the government is bringing to the parliament. This is to deal with volatility during the course of the financial year. Debt will remain below the $250 billion current cap at the end of financial years, but there is volatility during the year. What the Leader of the Opposition, who is obviously struggling to understand the budget—and there is no mystery about that given his lack of interest in economics, as the former Treasurer, Peter Costello, was known to remark on more than one occasion—has obviously not noticed in the budget is that it brings the budget to surplus in 2012-13 exactly as promised. It brings the budget to surplus because that is the right thing for our economy now. It is the clearest sign of a strong economy. It is giving us a buffer for the future. With the government doing the right thing—bringing the budget to surplus—we are giving the Reserve Bank the room to move, should it choose to do so, in reducing interest rates. We know from last week just how important interest rate reductions are to working families.

We have learnt something else today about the nature of the Leader of the Opposition and his approach to budgeting: he does not trust Australian families. That is the issue before the parliament today. We believe hardworking Australian families can be trusted—

Government members: Shame! Shame!

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order: the Prime Minister was asked about putting $50 billion more on the nation's credit card and that is the question—

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

The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. He will not use points of order for argument. The Prime Minister has the call and will be directly relevant to the question.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was indicating, to the Leader of the Opposition's question, the answer: the debt cap; the importance of the budget surplus; and the importance of staying in touch with and understanding the needs of working families and having a bit of respect for their ability to budget, manage and put their children first instead of spending the day insulting them the way the Leader of the Opposition has.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. How is the budget spreading the benefits of the mining boom?

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Blair for his question because this is a battler's budget that only a Labor government could deliver. We are proudly back in surplus—light years ahead of our peers. We are proud to be spreading the benefits of the mining boom right around our country, to many more Australians, giving them a stake in our economic success. We are certainly very proud to make room in this budget to provide for the most vulnerable in our community, like Australians with a disability. We are returning to surplus. We are building surpluses over the forward estimates. What we are doing is providing the maximum room for the Reserve Bank of Australia to adjust interest rates should it so decide. What this means is that the interest rate in Australia—the cash rate—is now lower than it was at any time under the previous government. If you have got something like a $300,000 mortgage you are now paying $3,000 a year less than you were paying under the previous government.

I know everybody on this side of the House understands how important it is to get into surplus, how important it is to stay in surplus and how important that is for the future of interest rates in our community. What we also understand is the importance of assisting low- and middle-income families in our community and spreading the benefits of the mining boom across as many of those households as we can. That is why we are proud to provide additional support to families from 1 July next year via the family tax benefit. We are also particularly proud to be introducing a new schoolkids bonus to provide more support for the cost of education for families—something that is very important. Our future is one that is intertwined with the region. It is not just about a resources boom and what it does here. Our ability to harvest the opportunities of the Asian century in the future depends upon the quality of education for our children. As a government, from day one, we have been investing in education. Another way to do it is to help those families with those cost-of-living pressures that come when the kids are going back to school or starting a new term, and that is why the schoolkids bonus is so important.

But we are doing more than that. We are giving important tax relief to small business with the instant asset write-off for up to 2.7 million small businesses in our community and by bringing in loss carry-back. All of these are very important ways of ensuring we strengthen our economy and look after low- and middle-income Australians.

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

My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer explain why there was no mention in the budget speech last night of the government seeking to increase the nation's credit card limit from $250 billion to a record $300 billion?

Government members: It's not a credit card!

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

Order! People are not assisting the Treasurer to be heard. The Treasurer has the call.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a question that I take very seriously, because the government takes its $250 billion debt cap very seriously.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order! I will not tolerate excessive noise while question time is underway. The Treasurer has the call.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The budget papers show that Commonwealth securities on issue are under the existing limit at the end of each year. That is the fact. I know it is an uncomfortable fact and I know it is going to stand in the way of a massive scare campaign that those opposite want to run. I know they will go to any lengths to talk down our economy and to run it down in terms of its international reputation. But those are the facts. We have had a request from the Office of Financial Management to put a buffer in because we do have a challenge when it comes—

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order! I will, if pushed, issue a general warning and there will be very few people left in the chamber. The Treasurer has the call.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have been advised by the Office of Financial Management that we should have a buffer, notwithstanding the fact that at the end of each year we are within that cap. I know those opposite do not understand a lot about financial markets, so we will just run through a couple of the facts. First and foremost, in terms of Commonwealth revenues, they tend to come in in lumps and they tend to come in particularly towards the end of the year. What actually happens is that expenditure is evenly spread across the year. So we have an in-year financing challenge which is made worse by the fact that we have maturing bond lines and as they are maturing we are issuing new ones. That can mean we do go over the cap on a temporary basis but we stay within it at the end of the year. The point that the OFM has made is this, and I will quote from their memo: 'To manage these fluctuations in an efficient and effective manner it is critical that the debt management operations of the AOFM are not affected by short-term borrowing constraints such as a debt cap or a similar mechanism.' We reported in full in the budget papers what we were intending to do and why we were intending to do it. It is very sensible for Australia and I think that those opposite should just pause for a minute and not play politics with this issue.

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. Treasurer, what is the dollar figure that gross debt will peak at and in what year will it peak?

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

Order! If the member for North Sydney wants to see out question time, he can stop pushing it. The Leader of the House has the call.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I raise a point of order that the supplementary question must arise directly from the original question asked.

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

My understanding would be that the supplementary is in order. I will call the Treasurer.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very happy to answer the question, Madam Deputy Speaker, delighted. I will go through the percentages and I will go through the values and then I will go through gross debt,—

Mr Hockey interjecting—

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

Order! The member for North Sydney is warned.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and I am more than happy to run through all of the tables. They are all there in the budget papers. I know those opposite are pretending they have never seen them before so we will just go through net debt, which peaks as a percentage of GDP at 9.6, runs through to 2015 at 7.3 in terms of the figure itself of 142 in 2011-12, and goes through 131. In terms of gross debt, 18 per cent of GDP, 265.8 in 2011-12, goes through to 281.3, which is the figure the member was looking for, and comes down over the next decade.

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order! The member for La Trobe has the call and will be heard in silence.

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

My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, how will the budget spread the benefits of the mining boom while delivering a surplus and helping families to make ends meet?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for La Trobe for her question, and I know that she is concerned about families in her electorate who can struggle to make ends meet, to pay the bills when they come in and to pay all of the costs for getting the kids to school. In fact, in the member for La Trobe's electorate we have 10,300 families who will receive our schoolkids bonus because they are families with 18,150 school-aged children. That means the families in the member for La Trobe's electorate will see almost $11 million to assist them with the costs of getting the kids to school.

This is part of a Labor budget, a Labor budget where we have delivered for the economy to make sure that we are doing the right things to keep our economy strong. We have come out of the global financial crisis strong and we work together to achieve it. The government is playing its part with employers and trade unions to keep people in jobs. Now, as our economy returns to trend growth, is the right time to deliver a surplus, to give us a buffer for the future, to ensure the Reserve Bank has the room to move, should it choose to do so, and reduce interest rates.

As we have made the difficult savings choices to bring the budget to surplus, we have been determined to protect and support working families and their children. There is no better way of doing that than by assisting families with the costs of getting the kids to school. We know right around the nation that, whether it be the winter uniform, the school excursion, the new books, the new shoes and then needing to get another pair of shoes as the kids grow, that those bills, those costs, can put pressure on working families. That is why we are very proud that we will be delivering to them a schoolkids bonus—$820 per secondary student, $410 per primary student—and that they will see that money coming to them before the end of this financial year and then in following years in January and July.

We trust working families, we respect them and we know they are making the best decisions for their children. We know schooling costs them a lot more than $410 and $820. It is only those who are cosseted on Sydney's North Shore that could fail to realise that working families need relief, working families face the costs of getting kids to school, and we are intending to help them with those costs because we respect them and we want to support them. We will not spend our days offering cheap insults to their ability to look after their children.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer confirm that if he was not shuffling at least $7½ billion dollars of spending out of 2012-13 and into the previous and later years, and if the spending on the $50 billion NBN was counted towards the budget bottom line, then the budget would show an actual deficit of at least $12 billion?

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the line that is being peddled by those opposite, who have a $70 billion hole, or crater, in their budget bottom line. Somehow they want to walk around and pretend that we have not done the hard yakka to bring our budget back to surplus, so they have come up with the great con, which is to claim that, if we had included all of the NBN accounting that they say we should, we would be in deficit. The truth is this: that we are operating under a Charter of Budget Honesty developed by those on that side. We are working within accounting standards that were followed by the previous government and we have accounted for the NBN in precisely the same way as bodies like Australia Post and EFIC have been accounted for forever and a day, and were accounted for by the previous government in that way. I reject the slur that comes with that question that somehow we would not have a surplus if the NBN was accounted for differently. We have accounted for the NBN in the same way as these bodies have been accounted for by previous governments according to the accounting standards and according to the Charter of Budget Honesty.

The second slur that they are throwing around is somehow that the moneys have been moved around. The fact is we have in this budget $33 billion worth of savings, and they find that very, very hard to cope with given they have a $70 billion hole in their budget bottom line. They cannot even find $70 billion. We have found $33 billion worth of savings in this budget and that is why we are coming back to surplus, and if you have a look at the figures you will see that we have payments at record lows—well below anything that we have seen for a four-year period since the early 1980s. What that shows is considerable expenditure restraint right across the forward estimates, so let us just dispatch with this slur because those on the other side of the parliament cannot make their budget numbers add up. What we know is that the auditors they hired to look at their books at the last election have been found guilty of misconduct. No wonder there was an $11 billion black hole in their estimates at the last election campaign. So they come to this with very dirty hands and they have no credibility when it comes to budget accounting.

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

My question is to the Treasurer: now that the budget reflects the Greens' position not to give tax cuts to big business there is an extra $16 billion available to the public purse over the next decade. Why isn't that money being used for long-term reform that would secure our economy after the mining bubble bursts, for example, by boosting school funding as recommended by the Gonski review?

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Melbourne for his question, because in this House the company tax cut has been opposed not just by the Greens but by the Liberal Party. That is why the government has not been able to get its proposal through—they have made it very clear well in advance that they would not support a cut in the company tax rate. Indeed, they have been in the opposite position: they have a policy to increase company taxation, not to cut it—quite extraordinary.

The member asked me about what we are using the revenue for and why we have chosen to invest in the families of Australia, particularly those on low and middle incomes. We on this side of the House absolutely understand how important it is to give a bit of extra support to low- and middle-income families in our community and we make no apology for the fact that we are spending some of that money to boost the purchasing power of low- and middle-income families in this community who deserve to have a bigger stake in the mining boom, spreading the opportunities of that right around our community.

We understand that for many small businesses, particularly in the patchwork economy, there needs to be business tax reform, which is why we are moving forward with the instant asset write-off—a very big boon for small business in our community—and proceeding with the loss carry-back as well. These are two important reforms to make small business more competitive, to give them a helping hand whilst, at the same time, making sure that we give a fair go to low- and middle-income working families. On top of all of that, we are putting in place fundamental reforms, such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and putting in place additional support to help people with dental care. All of these things, plus a huge aged-care package, demonstrate that if you can make big savings in your budget you can bring it back to surplus and make room for important new priorities.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the . How will the budget spread the benefits of the mining boom to Australian families; why is it important that this support is delivered quickly to those who need it; and what would be the impact if it is not?

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Disability Reform) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Petrie very much for her question. The Treasurer last night delivered a Labor budget that is going to bring this country back to surplus and that spreads the benefits of the mining boom. This is a budget that gives back to families, a budget that in true Labor style makes sure that families get the benefit of this boom.

Today I have introduced legislation into this chamber to deliver Australia's schoolkids bonus, a bonus that will see 1.3 million Australian families getting more help to make ends meet. Families would receive $410 a year for each child they have in primary school and $820 a year for each child they have in secondary school, and this would be paid before the start of term 1 and term 3. The fact is that 80 per cent of families were missing out on their full entitlements under the education tax refund. This new schoolkids bonus will make sure that one million Australian families get more money.

On top of that, this budget delivers to 1½ million families extra funding through their family payments from the middle of next year. Families on the maximum rate will receive $600 extra if they have two children or more. That is what this government is delivering in this Labor budget to help families make ends meet.

The member for Petrie asked this question. There are 9,700 families in the electorate of Petrie who are going to benefit from the schoolkids bonus.

Today the Liberals confirmed that they are going to oppose the schoolkids bonus. We found out just before question time that they are loading up the list of speakers for this afternoon because they are trying to avoid bringing on the vote. They are so ashamed of their position.

I say to the member for Riverina that I noticed in the Wagga Daily Advertiser today a lady— (Time expired)

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask a supplementary question in response to the minister's answer. Can the minister advise how families in my community and across northern Brisbane will benefit from this support?

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Disability Reform) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Petrie for her supplementary question and for her advocacy for families in Brisbane's north. As I indicated, there are thousands of families in her electorate, and of course many more across Brisbane, who will benefit from the schoolkids bonus. In fact, we heard on ABC Radio this morning a Brisbane family in the electorate of Dickson who spoke about the benefits of the schoolkids bonus. Jude and her husband, Bruce, have four children, aged four to 11, and they make it very plain that they think this new schoolkids bonus is a great thing. They are going to be getting a significant bonus from this Labor government. Has the member for Dickson had the guts to ring Jude and Bruce and tell them that he is going to be opposing a schoolkids bonus? He is going to try and stop Jude and Bruce getting this extra money.

The member for Dickson, like everybody over there, thinks he knows better than the parents of Australia how to bring up their children. While this Labor government wants to make sure that we give Jude and Bruce—and the families in Wagga and all the other people around Australia—the funding that they need, all you can do is say no.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The people in Wagga are really looking forward to paying the carbon tax because of you.

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

The member for Riverina will leave the chamber under 94(a).

The member for Riverina then left the chamber.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. Isn't it the case that, if the government was not artificially bringing forward scheduled 2012-13 local government financial assistance grants worth over $1 billion in this financial year, and artificially bringing forward payments of the government's new schoolkids cash splash from July into June, your projected 2012-13 surplus would be a deficit on these two adjustments alone?

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

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

My question is to the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth. How will the budget support schoolchildren across the country, and what are the obstacles to this support?

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Kingston for her question. Labor has delivered a budget that not only provides for the vulnerable in our community but also, importantly, provides families that have kids at school with the assistance they need with the costs that they face. This comes on top of the significant additional investments in education that this Labor government has made over its term. We nearly doubled spending in education compared with those opposite. We are serious about education and we understand the challenges and the cost-of-living pressures that families face, and that fact was recognised in this budget.

So we are now delivering a schoolkids bonus. As the Prime Minister and the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs have said, it is $410 for primary school students and $820 for secondary school students, and it benefits over one million families. They will really welcome that support.

I am asked this question by the member for Kingston. In her electorate, 11,200 families are expected to benefit; nearly 20,000 kids are eligible for this primary or secondary schoolkids bonus. All parents know that there are costs—whether for school uniforms or excursions—that come with raising a family and getting them off to school. The fact is that there is now greater flexibility for those parents as they manage those costs.

I am asked by the member: what are the obstacles to this support? The obstacles to the schoolkids bonus are sitting on the other side of the House in this parliament, opposing this measure for Australian parents. It seems that the Leader of the Opposition and the member for North Sydney do not really trust any Australian families with extra money. The Leader of the Opposition is sending a message to Australian parents: he does not trust you with the way you run your family budget. In fact, the shadow minister had a press release out just before we came into the parliament. He has just written it off altogether and calls it a 'sugar hit'. What a massive insult to Australian parents, who every time the school term starts have got to think about where they can find those additional resources for the new uniforms, the new school shoes, the new backpack and the like.

The fact is, this will make a difference to parents who are serious about education, in the same way that the other investments this government has made have made a difference to schools right around this country. Whether it is the new facilities, whether it is teacher training support, whether it is helping kids with their literacy and numeracy, whether it is bringing a national curriculum into play or whether it is understanding that supporting education is the most important thing that we can do for the future of our country, we get it and they do not. That is why this schoolkids bonus is solid, strong Labor policy.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. How does the Prime Minister justify a cash giveaway to some Australians, designed as a schoolkids cash splash, while at the same time putting future generations of Australians further into debt by raising the debt ceiling to $300 billion. Why should Australians believe the government can competently deliver this cash giveaway when its $900 cash bonus was paid to dead people, horses, cats, dogs and Australians living overseas?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To the member for Menzies, I say that is the arrogance of the opposition on display. It shows just how out of touch it is with the needs of working families. I hope that the member for Menzies contacts the 5,000 families in his electorate who are eligible for the schoolkids bonus and explains to them why he is coming into this parliament and voting against them getting that bonus. To the member for Menzies, let me say this: it is only members of the opposition who apparently fail to understand that families face cost-of-living pressures. Not one of them gets it; they are all going to vote against relief for working families. Not one of them understands Australian families and their needs today.

It is only members of the opposition who apparently imagine that you can send a child to primary school and somehow that costs you less than $410 a year, and that you can send a child to high school and somehow that costs you less than $820 a year. People who live in the real world—that is, people who are not members of the opposition—know that educating a child costs thousands of dollars. What this bonus is for is to provide a bit of relief to working families who are doing it tough. It is for families who are eligible for our family tax benefit system, families who are eligible for that relief because we know that they need it to make a difference to the cost of the winter school uniforms, to the cost of the shoes and to the cost of the excursions.

What have we heard back from the opposition to try to justify their position in not supporting the schoolkid bonus? The Leader of the Opposition was asked what the difference is between this and the baby bonus, because he supported the baby bonus. In a masterstroke in Australian politics, his answer was, 'Well, look, they just are'. And then, the shadow Treasurer, when asked what the difference is, said, 'there is a vast difference'. 'What?', he is asked. 'Well, you have to have a baby to get the baby bonus', he said. Apparently the shadow Treasurer does not know babies grow into school children! That is what happens: they grew into school children! And then you have the cost of sending the kids to school. How out of touch can these people be? How cosseted from the real world are they? How insulting of Australian families.

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I put it to you that the Prime Minister would be directly relevant if, in fact, the schoolkids bonus was paid for education expenses but, in fact, it is not.

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

The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Points of order are not to be abused. The Prime Minister has the call.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for illustrating my last point. These arrogant, cynical people think Australian families do not care about their kids. They think 1.3 million Australian families are going to take this money and not use it for the benefit of their families and their children. They are contemptuous of working children. (Time expired)