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

I have received a letter from the honourable member for North Sydney proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The urgent need for the Government to bring its spending under control.

I call upon those 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—

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

How interesting it was that, of the five amigos, the fabulous five who were named yesterday in an AFR article about challenging the Treasurer on spending priorities, only one today decided to stand up and say the claims were untrue.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Only one!

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

Only one. What about the other four? I am sure that, over in the Senate, Senator Cameron as the chief flamethrower for the member for Griffith is right now saying, 'It's outrageous—I didn't challenge on spending priorities; I actually challenged on the basis that I want more taxes'! That is what Labor is about: more taxes. The member for Bass gave it his best shot. He said, 'Let's double the Medicare levy.' The Treasurer said, 'No, we're not going to do that.' That is a more effusive, more direct and more comprehensive answer to the member for Bass in the Labor Party caucus than anything this Treasurer has ever given to the Australian people in this place. But it gets better. According to the article yesterday:

One Labor MP, who asked not to be named, told The Australian Financial Review that some MPs were concerned about Labor's recent raft of funding commitments.

''They want to talk about these all encompassing programs, but they don't want to talk about how they are going to fund it,'' the MP said.

"It’s probably a sign of maturity in caucus—

it has only been around for 113 years, caucus, but finally there is a sign of maturity in caucus, according to this Labor MP!—

that people are not just prepared to go along with this wishful thinking.''

I repeat: 'this wishful thinking'. It is like The Wishing Well, one of the books I read to my kids, a story about making wishes, or The Magic Pudding, The Magic Faraway Tree, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and all those stories. They are all great stories but they are all fantasy—all fantasy, like the economic credibility of the Labor Party. It is all fantasy. They know how to spend money and, boy, are they good at it.

We have had pink batts that have burnt down houses. We have had $900 cheques go to dead people to stimulate the economy, which is a big ask of a dead person! We have also had the government spend outrageous sums of money on massively overpriced school halls. But, if you thought for a single moment that Labor might have learnt its lesson on waste, you are wrong; we have found a couple more examples. The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities—actually, I think it is a bit of a waste to have a title with five different roles in it—

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

What's the acronym?

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

DSEWPaC! The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities has a $462,000 contract to deck out just two offices with indoor plants. That is just fantastic! It's a cracker. Just listen to this one: Labor has handed out $72,000 to the Auburn Community Development Network—in the member for Reid's marginal electorate—to host an 'enviro tea salon'. Thanks to the funding—this is the worst!—participants can now take part in a weaving workshop using native lomandra grass. I wonder what they are doing with that lomandra grass! Listen to this: participants 'will be encouraged to share their energy efficiency tips in exchange for a free seedling, re-potted into a recycled coffee cup sourced from local businesses'. That is taxpayers' money, $72,000 worth. Every taxpayer out there has been wondering where their taxes go under Labor.

And, just in case the wrong impression is given, Labor currently spends $150 million a year on an army of spin doctors. There are 1,600 people employed in the Public Service in media, communications, marketing and public affairs. The Australian Taxation Office has 271 spin doctors—I would say that is 271 who have failed at their jobs—while Defence has 175 and Human Services 124. This is Labor.

Mr Bradbury interjecting—

You might say, 'Come on, Joe, you're being a little tough here. You're being a little tough when you're down to talking about $72,000 or even $467,000.' But do you know what the cracker is? The federal government paid $1 billion, no strings attached, to electricity generators before 31 June this year for nothing—for nothing. They were going to close down some of those power stations, or they were going to keep them open; they cannot quite tell. But it was $1 billion. Remember the flood levy? The flood levy upset so many Australians who had given so generously privately to try and help Queenslanders in particular but also Victorians affected by floods. The government said, 'No, we've got to be responsible with our budget. We've got to have a limit on the deficit. The deficit will be $22 billion, therefore we're going to have a $1.7 billion flood levy.' That had a real impact on consumer confidence. It had a real impact on the discretionary spend of consumers. You know what happened? The government did not care about the budget, because what they promised was a $22 billion deficit and it has now turned out to be a $44 billion deficit.

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

So how would you have funded it?

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

Now that I am being interjected on by the member for Lindsay, it takes me to the waste on boats. You are familiar with boats, aren't you, coming from Western Sydney? Before the last election the member for Lindsay went all the way up into Northern Australia, jumped on one of our naval vessels and, to the best of my memory, said, 'We are going to stop the boats.' Commander Bradbury said that—a long way from Penrith and Western Sydney. The only boat the Labor Party has stopped is a legal boat that tried to go fishing in Australian waters after three approvals from the Labor Party. That is the only boat you have stopped, sunshine.

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

His electorate's landlocked.

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

No, he has got the Nepean River. He will have his own little navy out of this, I am sure!

But it does get very serious. Why? Because, in order to shore up the Prime Minister's leadership, the Labor Party have gone on a spending spree of unprecedented scale. They have promised to deliver a National Disability Insurance Scheme, for which they have promised a huge amount of money, involving $10½ billion a year once it is fully operational, but they have not found the money for it. There could be no crueller hoax on some of the most vulnerable people in the community than to raise expectations and not deliver. Yet that is what the Labor Party have done. They have allocated $1 billion over the next four years for a program that, into the future, is going to cost $10½ billion to run. There is no money for it. They are trying to create the impression there is money for it.

They said they are going to increase aged-care funding by $3.7 billion over the next five years, but there is no money for it. They said: 'Don't worry. Low-paid workers are going to get an extra $1 billion.' In fact, we have now found out it is an extra $3 billion for low-paid workers, which the Labor Party said was a pay rise for social and community sector workers. So it was originally $1 billion and now it is $3 billion. They are going to subsidise private sector wages, and of course that is money that is not in the budget.

Offshore processing—gee, that's going well! It will be $2.1 billion at least for reopening Nauru and Manus Island. On the increase in the refugee intake, the government said they are increasing it to 20,000. They cannot stop the boats. We have had more than 25,000 people come here on boats under the government in recent times, yet they are increasing the refugee intake to 20,000, which is going to cost $1.4 billion.

You keep reminding me of defence and border protection. On defence, the government has committed to 12 new submarines—not six. They have one that urgently needs work sitting on a dry dock in South Australia. They are not prepared to spend the money on that, but do not worry, South Australia.

Opposition members interjecting—

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I do not think the member for North Sydney needs that assistance.

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

This government claims it is going to build 12 new submarines at $36 billion, and there is $16 billion for the Joint Strike Fighter, which it delays; it says the money is somewhere in the forward estimates. Well, it is not there. Then we have the dental care program—the one going through the parliament now—with $4 billion.

But the mother of them all, if you like, is the Gonski review, with $6½ billion, but probably really more—$8 billion a year. The Prime Minister said: 'Don't worry. Every school in the country will be better off.' We would love to promise that. We would love to say that every school in Australia is going to get way more money than the six per cent annual increase already budgeted for. We would love to say that. You know what? They will not say where it is coming from. But we know where it is coming from, because there is someone running around out there saying: 'Hang on. We should break into the government Future Fund, the money that was set up and put away by the coalition for the future challenges—the superannuation needs into the future—so that our children and grandchildren will not have a debt burden.' We put that money away. We did not spend it. We put it away, and what do Labor want to do? They want to break into that. You know what that is the equivalent of? That is the equivalent of saying to a parent: 'It's okay. Don't worry about your retirement. Don't worry about funding yourself and your family into retirement. You can break into your superannuation now in order to fund your children's education.' You cannot apply one rule to the government and not apply the same rule to everyday Australians. You cannot break into people's savings for one purpose and not another.

We asked the Treasurer explicitly in question time today: 'What is the answer? Yes or no? Are you going to break into this Future Fund, which Australians have put aside to deal with the challenges into the future and to protect our children?' You know what? He would not answer the question. He was prepared to answer the member for Bass in the caucus yesterday. He was prepared to answer a question on death duties in this place, but he was not prepared to answer the question about breaking into the Future Fund.

You know what comes out of all of this? The government's total indifference to the welfare of Australian families. How can you say to a family on a household income of $68,000 a year, 'Guys, you're going to have taxes that increase your cost of living by at least $1,000 or $2,000 a year'? How do you say that to them in this environment, when so many people are uncertain and nervous about the future? How do you say to those people, 'We're going to make it much harder for people into the future under Labor, but don't worry; it's all accounted for'? It is not accounted for. That is the Labor way. They said before the last election, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' The Prime Minister looked the Australian people in the eye and pledged there would be no carbon tax, and the Treasurer looked the Australian people in the eye and said it was a hysterical allegation that there would be a carbon tax. So too do they look the Australian people in the eye today and say, 'Don't worry; it will be all right.'

It will not be all right under Labor, because they are A-grade hypocrites. They are indifferent to the welfare of Australian families. They are indifferent to the welfare of Australian businesses. They just do not understand that taxpayers' money belongs to taxpayers. It is not theirs to splash around for the re-election of the leader of the Labor Party, Julia Gillard. It is not their opportunity to try and hold government based on taxpayers' money. It is their solemn responsibility to protect taxpayers, to give Australians hope, to allow Australians to gain the reward from their effort and their hard work and to ensure that as a nation we have the opportunity to do better. The handbrake of Labor must come off. It is time for them for once to be honest with the Australian people. (Time expired)

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

I am pleased to be able to contribute to this matter of public importance brought forward by the member for North Sydney. It is ironic that it is the member for North Sydney that brings forward this MPI, given the fact that he is the one that has confirmed that there is a $70 billion black hole in the opposition's costings. He has done it twice now on breakfast television. We all know about that occasion when he did it, when the minister for the environment was also side by side with him on breakfast television, and he confirmed that the $70 billion figure was correct. But after all of the hot air that we have heard from him since, we see today he went back on breakfast television. It took him a little while, but eventually he conceded once more that he does have a $70 billion black hole.

To give this some context, this $70 billion black hole comes on the back of that $11 billion black hole that they had in their election costings.

Mr Hartsuyker interjecting—

The member opposite—always one to walk into it—has come forward making an interjection about some mysterious $120 billion—no fact, absolutely no basis, no substance, another one of these Liberal scare campaigns. In fact, he is not even a Liberal. He is part of the tail that has been wagging the dog of economic policy for the Liberals—he is a National member. He is out there making these claims about $120 billion. Well, it is rubbish. There is no $120 billion black hole, and if they believe there is, provide some evidence. Tell us where this $120 billion black hole is. But when it comes to the $70 billion black hole, don't believe me. Go and talk to the shadow Treasurer. He is on the record, not once, but twice, going on breakfast television and confirming a $70 billion black hole.

But what was interesting about the comments that he made today on ABC 24 was that not only did he confirmed the $70 billion black hole, but he went on to say, 'Up to,' and when he did that, he goes on, 'what we are saying was, we will find the savings, and we have found the savings.' So he is not just saying that they have a $70 billion black hole, and not just acknowledging that they are going to need to find $70 billion worth of savings to plug the loophole. Mind you, they have not revealed to the Australian people any of these savings, except, of course, for the 12,000 public servants that they want to sack. We heard the member for North Sydney once more, on his feet just a few minutes ago, when he started talking about all these people in the public service. What he did not tell us was how many of them he intends to sack. But he has done that on a previous occasion—12,000 is the current figure. Twelve thousand. It is starting to sound familiar, isn't it? It is starting to sound just a little bit like Queensland. In fact, when we have a look at what is emerging, it is a pattern—a pattern of deceit, a pattern of Liberal and National deceit. I think it can best be described as the five-point plan coming straight out of the Liberal playbook. It always starts with step 1: talk down the economy. It does not matter how good the economic figures that are released are, the member for North Sydney has always got some spin that turns it into doom and gloom. You would think that we were a Third World country, if you listen to Premier Newman or some of those in New South Wales. They are out there saying, 'The Australian economy is up there in the same league as the Greek or Spanish economies.' Does anyone seriously believe that?

Let us have a look at the facts. We have an economy where our budget is returning to surplus. We have growth that has been achieved since the GFC of 11 per cent—our economy today is 11 per cent larger than it was before the GFC. Show me a major advanced economy, anywhere in the world, that comes within a hair of that 11 per cent growth—head and shoulders above all of our competitors, but they talk the economy down.

Unemployment is just over five per cent. We have interest rates at record lows. Remember they told us all, at a previous election, 'Interest rates will always be lower under the Liberals.' Then we had 10 consecutive increases in interest rates. To put some facts into the debate, interest rates are lower today under the Labor government than they were when the Liberals left office. In fact, a family on an average mortgage of about $300,000 is paying $4,000 a year less in their repayments. Four thousand dollars a year less—these are the facts.

We talk about strong growth, low unemployment, contained inflation, not to mention the record pipeline of investment coming into this country—half a trillion dollars worth of investment scheduled to come into this country in the resources sector alone. In addition to that, we know that our net debt—and they talk about debt and deficit—is peaking at less than 10 per cent of gross domestic product—less than 10 per cent of the size of our economy. When you compare that with our competitor economies, it is about a 10th of the average of other advanced economies. Anyone travelling to Australia says, 'What is the secret?' This is one of the miracle economies in terms of the GFC and coming out of the back of the GFC. The way in which the Australian economy is performing, it is outperforming all of its peers.

Those opposite come in here every day and talk down the economy. If they were in power, all of the indicators that they used to claim were the indicators of success. They used to say, 'We're a wonderful government, because interest rates are low.' Well, interest rates are low today. They used to say, 'We're a wonderful government, because unemployment is low.' Unemployment is low today. They used to say, 'We're a wonderful government because we've been growing.' The economy is growing today. On all of the measures that they previously stood up in this place and claimed were the benchmarks of economic success when they were on this side of the chamber, this government has achieved success. Our national economy gets a tick on all of these counts, yet day after day they come into this place and go out there into the community and talk down the economy.

They talk down the economy because that is step 1 of the five-point plan of the Liberal play book. Step 2, after they have spent all their time talking down the economy, is they make sure that they keep their policies in the top drawer. We heard from the member for North Sydney earlier today that they have costed all of these savings—$70 billion worth of savings. Have a look at New South Wales. The New South Wales Liberals have ripped $1.7 billion out of education. Look how much damage that has done. The federal party would have to make $70 billion worth of cuts. If you believe the shadow Treasurer or the member for Goldstein, who has previously said, 'We've done all the hard policy work, we've got the costings and we've got the savings,' they are in the top drawer.

They keep it in the top drawer. I am not sure if it is in the top drawer of the shadow Treasurer or the shadow minister for finance, but there is this folder. This folder has all of these nasty cuts that they want to make to health and education, like the cuts we have seen in Queensland and the cuts we have seen in New South Wales. I do not remember the people of New South Wales being let in on the secret before the New South Wales election. The Queensland people were not let in on the secret about all these cuts before the Queensland election. In the top drawer is a folder, and there is a label on this folder. The label says 'Commission of audit: recommendations', because step 3 of the five-point plan is that they hold a commission of audit.

So they would come in after talking the economy down, telling everyone that this is the worst economy in the world, and say, 'We have to take drastic action, and those policies that we costed that were sitting in the top drawer are mysteriously going to be the recommendations of the secret audit.' In Queensland they got Peter Costello to conduct the audit. I suspect that will not be happening. He is not the flavour of the month. In fact, given the way the coalition have turned their backs on rational economic policy, he has to pick up the pen and write opinion pieces day after day to point out what a tragedy it is that the once great Liberal Party, as he says, has now been taken over by that wagging dog of National Party agrarian populism. That is the shame about the modern Liberal Party.

The member for Higgins smiles. She smiles because she knows what a debacle it is that their economic policy is now being controlled by people who are xenophobic when it comes to foreign investment. They want to smash and break up Coles and Woolies.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: standing order 90 does not allow any improper imputation upon members of the opposition. Calling our view on foreign investment xenophobic crosses that line.

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Fadden will resume his seat. If I were to apply his rules, we would not actually have any debates in this place. Go ahead, Assistant Treasurer.

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

They are not my words but Peter Costello's words. Go and have a look at his opinion piece. Step 1: talk the economy down. Step 2: cost those nasty savings measures but keep them in the top drawer. Step 3: create a commission of audit. If you thought Peter Costello did a good job, I tell you that with a $70 billion black hole the only man for this job is Freddy Krueger. He is about the only one who could slash and slice and dice the sorts of savings that we would experience if the Liberals were to come to power.

So that is the third thing to do. They create a mickey mouse commission of audit, like they did when they were last in government. What they do not tell you is that when they were last in government they came in and said: 'What a disaster. The economy is in terrible shape. We need to make some savings.' So what did they do? They took an axe to health and education. The interesting thing was they had something like a commission of audit, but most of the things that they actually took up were not even the recommendations that the commission of audit outlined. They have already decided what they are going to cut. It is sitting in the top drawer.

The model, the template, is there for people to see in New South Wales and Queensland. It will take an axe to the Public Service. They have at least been a little bit honest about that in mentioning it will be 11,000 or 12,000 people. But they will take an axe to health. They will take an axe to education. That is their way. That is the Liberal way. We invest. We build a stronger economy for the future so that each individual has the capacity to make an active contribution to our economy. They believe that education is only for the privileged. They believe that if you cannot afford to pay for an education you do not deserve one. That is what they think. That is what they have always thought. Unfortunately, that is the future for this country if they get elected.

I have gone through the first few steps, but step 4, which I have already covered, is what they do when they get in, and that is to cut health and cut education. We saw what they did when they came to power in 1996. We have seen what Newman has done in Queensland. We have seen what O'Farrell has done in New South Wales. We have seen what Baillieu has done in Victoria. It is more of that that the Australian people can look forward to. But step 5 is the one. All of the first four steps were pretty predictable, but step 5 is the doozy. This is the one that you have all been waiting for.

There is a bit of an alignment of the stars happening here. They have their $70 billion black hole. How are they going to fill it? They are going to slash services—we know that. But, to give them credit, there have been one or two creative suggestions on their side. It is no more than a thought bubble, but if you pierce the thought bubble you can see there might actually be a kernel of coalition policy. It is a shame the member for Goldstein is not in the chamber at the moment. He came up with this cunning plan that the way he would save money is he would outsource health and education to the states. That is a good idea—they have been doing such a good job! I feel much safer knowing that Barry O'Farrell and Campbell Newman are going to look after health and education policy!

So we are going to outsource health and education completely to the state Liberal governments. Talk about opening the barn door and letting the fox into the henhouse. That is the future under a Liberal government. That is what we will experience under a Liberal government. But the thing about what the member for Goldstein has had to say is that there is a little bit more method to his madness. He is not just talking about outsourcing services to the states—because he knows that, if you outsource services to the states, they are going to want something out of it. Barry O'Farrell told us on the weekend what they want. They want to jack up the GST. The stars are beginning to come into alignment as more and more Liberal governments start to sprout up around the place all calling for an increase in the GST. We can see where it is going. They always wanted to put the GST on everything. They even took it to an election. Deep down in their heart of hearts they want to put the GST on everything—food, education and health. And now they want to get together with their Liberal mates and come back and try and finish the job. Well, we are going to stand up against that. (Time expired)

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to be able to speak on the very important issue of the failure of the government to bring its spending under control. The member for North Sydney chronicled the waste of this government. He mentioned pink batts, Building the Education Revolution and sending cheques to dead people and pets. But the biggest waste of all is not a budget item. The biggest waste of all has to be the National Broadband Network—and it is not even on the budget, so Australian taxpayers will be unaware of the financial carnage that this government is wreaking in Australia. The National Broadband Network has a cone of silence around it. You cannot inquire into the actual position of the NBN; it is shrouded in secrecy. It started as a $4.7 billion fibre-to-the-node network across the country. But it has morphed. It has had the mother of all cost overruns. And now many industry commentators say they do not think it will be finished for $50 billion—a tenfold increase in cost.

We have had no cost-benefit analysis. The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy, worked out the details on the back of a beer coaster on a VIP jet with then Prime Minister Rudd flying from Sydney to Perth. The $4.7 billion project morphed into something much more expensive. The member for North Sydney chronicled a number of fairytales earlier. We had the Wizard of Oz and the Magic Faraway Tree. But there is a bigger fairytale, and that is the NBN Co. corporate plan. The NBN Co. corporate plan is one of Australia's great fairytales. But it does tell us a few things. It claims that the actual cost, the capex, to build the network will be $37.5 billion but it will cost around $44.1 billion to complete the total project.

When you look at their figures, NBN Co.'s capital expense will be $1.4 billion more than originally planned, operating expenses will be $3.2 billion more than originally planned and, at the same time, revenue will be $600 million less than originally planned. That is a $5.2 billion adverse budget outcome in only two years. If you can achieve that in around two years, what hope does the Australian taxpayer have for any protection from the waste of this organisation over the life of the project, which is going to go well beyond a decade? The reality is that the government have no idea how much this project is going to cost. At every turn, they conceal the true position of the National Broadband Network.

The corporate plan for the NBN Co. has changed so much over the last couple of years that any forecasts made within it should be seen as nothing more than politically motivated guesses. We can have very little faith in NBN Co., because they miss every target. They are the gold medallists in missing targets. They missed every target in the 2010-12 corporate plan. The original corporate plan said the indirect costs were supposed to be $800 million by 2013. That has been revised up to $1.5 billion. This spending was on advertising, staff, vehicles, fit-outs, beer fridges—all the essential things. But building activity, spending on the actual network, was $1.7 billion less than actually planned. So NBN Co. was busily fitting out its offices, buying a fleet of vehicles and all that sort of stuff but the rollout of the network was actually proceeding at a snail's pace.

By 2013 the NBN fibre rollout was supposed to have passed 1.26 million premises; the new corporate plan says only 341,000. By 2013 the NBN fibre was supposed to be connected to over half a million premises; the new corporate plan revised that figure down by a princely 89 per cent to just 54,000. Total customer numbers, including wireless and satellite, have been revised down by 84 per cent from 562,000 to just 92,000.

But there is some good news. In the recent past, we finally got to the point where NBN Co. have more customers than staff. That is certainly a substantial improvement. Finally they have got to the point where they have got more customers than staff. NBN Co. is purely a financial disaster. If you believe the corporate plan, NBN Co. will have spent around $6 billion by 2013 for a grand total of 92,000 customers hooked up to its network—by any measure a colossal failure.

Despite the government rhetoric, the taxpayer is really paying for this. It is an absolute furphy to try and claim that this is somehow a project that can be kept off budget; it is a cost that is going to be met by the taxpayer. This project has little chance of being commercially viable. They did not even include in their figurings the cost of interest. My colleague the member for Wentworth quite rightly pointed out that a cost of around $10 billion in interest has not been included in the project cost. No developer would exclude interest charges on the cost of a development. But NBN Co. do, and they do it because they are trying to create an illusion that this project is somehow viable. I think Australian taxpayers deserve to know the true cost of the NBN. They deserve to know what it is costing them. They deserve to have the shroud of secrecy raised so that there can be actual transparency. Just as the government cannot get its spending under control, NBN cannot get its spending under control. In the current financial year NBN Co. will spend $1.1 billion on operating expenses, $3.2 billion on capital expenses and will only connect 54,000 customers.

The issue of how NBN Co. will run the satellites is of great concern. They will spend in the order of $2 billion on the satellite program. The program to have high-speed services delivered via satellite will be welcomed by regional Australia. But the reality is that there is no need for the government to own satellites, operate satellites and own the ground stations. When you talk to people in the satellite industry they are aghast at the fact that the government would go into the satellite business when they could have set a performance specification and had the private sector deliver the product, with utmost reliability, at a fraction of the cost. The government obviously have not learned from the Aussat debacle, where they lost $700 million in the early nineties. Nowhere in the world is a government getting into providing communication services via satellite.

We have the Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network. It is supposed to be the eyes and ears of the parliament, supposed to be a watchdog that looks over the project. When we have Mike Quigley, the head of NBN Co., appear before the NBN joint committee, all we get are elusive answers. We never get answers to the questions that we want, we never get frank and concise answers; we always get an attempt to shroud what is actually happening in NBN Co. I asked a question about some remediation works needed for Bonnyrigg subdivision. I asked what the cost was and, as is always the case, the CEO of NBN Co. said that he did not know.

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

Didn't care!

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Probably didn't care—that is right. So I put the question on notice and after months and months of waiting—he probably thought I would forget about it—the answer came back. I asked a very simple question: 'What was the cost of remediation works for Bonnyrigg subdivision?' He came back and said, 'The project was completed using standard NBN techniques.' That was the cost: 'The project has been completed using standard NBN techniques.'

So I then reminded him that to mislead a parliamentary committee was a most grievous matter and that he should be mindful of giving us the correct answer. After months we finally got the answer: they had wasted $20,000 on remediation works for Bonnyrigg. That item is relatively minor in terms of the total project, but the principle is far more important, that a parliamentary committee asked a concise question and got an answer that was meant to mislead. So if we are getting answers to a whole range of other questions that are equally misleading, when you are looking at the largest infrastructure project in this nation's history, the Australian taxpayer can have no faith in the answers that NBN Co. are giving and the Australian taxpayer can have no faith in their corporate plan, which is the greatest fairy story since The Wizard of Oz. The Australian taxpayer should have great cause for concern. Not only do we have a Treasurer who cannot keep spending under control; we have the CEO of NBN Co., Mike Quigley, who cannot keep spending under control. We have a project that is behind time, over budget and a waste of taxpayers' money. Taxpayers will be paying dearly for their incompetence.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

People listening to this MPI debate might think they had just experienced a bit of deja vu, maybe a bit of a re-run of an old tape. But the old tape was not that old; it was from earlier today.

The coalition disrupt the proceedings of the House for urgencies and for all sorts of things they want to do just to have a debate, then they have an MPI just half an hour later on the exact same topic. They have no idea about their own agenda or how to run a program and certainly no idea about what the urgency is in a matter of public importance. So rather than talk about the issues I thought that I would have a look at what this MPI actually says and that maybe we could address the urgency. What is the urgency that is contained in this MPI? I had a bit of a think about what this urgency perhaps represents.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I will ask for the cooperation of the House. The last speaker, the member for Cowper, was heard in silence and the same courtesy should apply to every member of this House.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the protection, Madam Deputy Speaker, from this rowdy mob, although I have to say they are not as rowdy as the contributions we had just after question time. There was a fair bit of hide, a fair bit of bluster—and a fair bit of spittle that went around the room at the same time. But it always indicates to me just how shallow, hollow and how empty the rhetoric is—the louder it is. We saw plenty of that before from the shadow Treasurer, the member for North Sydney. Again, I thought I should have a close look at what this urgency matter is. What could be so urgent? Is something imminent about to happen? A collapse or an ending of something? This urgency starts to wear a little bit thin after more than two years of hearing it—'The government's going to collapse,' 'Something's going to happen,' all these things. It just is not the case. So I figured out what the urgency is. It is the urgency of these guys to warm their backsides on the seats of government. That is the urgency. The urgency is actually about them. It is about their personal urgency. They want to get on this side. That is the only urgency. These guys are in a hurry.

One thing that we do know is that they do not respect democracy. From day one the only mantra they have had is: 'We need an election tomorrow.' That is their whole mantra, that is their policy basis: 'We need an election tomorrow so that we can get to government quicker. Forget the three-year terms, forget the process, forget the Constitution.' The urgency of this motion is about how quick these guys can get themselves into the seats of power. Believe me, they have form. That is the only urgency.

Then I thought, if it is not just about the urgency issue, perhaps it is the control of government spending. What is urgent about the control of government spending? I thought there must be something disastrous happening either in Australia or in the world. I looked at the world and I thought, 'There is something disastrous happening.' Most of the world is feeling those ill winds of the global financial crisis. I know those opposite have forgotten already; they forgot the same day it happened. The global financial crisis, according to Tony Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, just did not happen. They like to skip over that bit, because the Labor government actually did a good job of getting through it. So they do not want to talk about that; they do not want to remind people about that. So what is the urgency here? What is the getting back into control of the spending? I thought I had better go and check the books. What is the best way to find out if spending is out of control? Go and check the books. So I did. I went and had a look at the books and I found—guess what—that the Australian economy has grown larger, by 11 per cent, since we came to government. How is that even possible? We were facing a global financial crisis but we still managed to grow the economy. And guess what? We did not grow it by sacking people. That is what the Queensland LNP and Campbell Newman do and that is what Barry O'Farrell does in New South Wales. We grew it by adding jobs. We grew it by investing in infrastructure. We grew the economy by investing in education, investing in skills dealing with productivity and looking at what the economic drivers of the economy are.

I know they are hollow words for the opposition. They do not even know what those words mean. They are not concerned. In fact, in this one matter of public importance you can see what this opposition are all about. It is about their urgency to warm the seats of government, their urgency to run to the Lodge, their urgency to be in the halls of power—not to deliver anything, not to achieve some good, not to deliver some outcome and not to deliver better education outcomes or better health services.

Let us take a leaf out of the book of those LNP and Liberal and National party governments that are in government right now. We know they are on the same page and are singing from the same song sheet. They are in the same broad church. What are they doing? What are they doing to their economies? What are they doing in their states? Let us take a look at Queensland. You would think that in difficult economic times you would try to boost upwards the economy. You would perhaps try to support mining. You would not want to increase royalties. A direct hit—regardless of profit, just on the sheer amount you pull out of the ground. At the same time that we have got price pressures downwards on resources, they actually put a tax the other way. They put a tax on the quantity that comes out of the ground rather than when you make a profit. Where have the great market economists of the Liberal Party gone? They are not sitting on the opposition benches. They are not even on the crossbenches.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They're not sitting on your side!

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If they are not sitting on our side and they are not sitting on your side, just which side are they sitting on? There are only two sides. Let me go through, again, some facts. Where have we spent the money?—hang on! We lifted the age pension, the largest single increase in the age pension, for those most in need in our economy—our older people who really need a boost.

Opposition members interjecting—

They are still arguing against it! They still do not want older people to get an age pension increase. They really hate that. It is disturbing. Was that a waste of money? I do not think it was. I think it is something good we did and is something that will outlive us as a government and hopefully outlive you, whenever you might be in government.

We saved over $3 billion by means-testing the private health insurance rebate to ensure it was fairer and more sustainable into the future. We understand the need to get the balance right between spending and saving. We have saved over $900 million by targeting family payments in a better way, making sure the baby bonus works in the way it is intended. We have saved over $1.9 billion by better targeting the tax concession for living-away-from-home allowances. We have saved over $900 million by reducing tax concessions for very-high-income earners. People have called for a long time for the lifting of the tax-free threshold. Why should it only be $6,000 before you pay tax? This government listened. We have lifted it not twice but three times, to $18,000. That is where we have spent the money.

Go and tell everyone out there that you want to take it back off them, because that is what you are saying by everything that you do—I was going to say in policies, but there are not any.

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

I thought we had nasty policies!

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are all nasty. They only have one policy and one mantra, which is the urgency to get to the Lodge and the urgency to be in the halls of power. They cannot wait. They are rubbing their hands with glee. You can see them at night, going: 'I can't wait. I can't wait to do what Campbell Newman does in Queensland. I can't wait to do what Barrel O'Farrell'—maybe he is a barrel—'Barry O'Farrell in New South Wales—

Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind the member for Herbert that he is not in his chair.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They cannot wait to get to the halls of power to do the first thing they always do, and all Australians know it, and that is to just start sacking people. How do you support an economy by just getting rid of people? It is a tragedy in this place. But when we recently heard some of the contributions to this debate I thought I had better listen to what the other side says, to make sure I get a grasp or a grip on what their argument is.

Their argument amounted to this, and I will summarise it. You start with a tax. You attack government department names: 'What a silly name for a government department.' I think the shadow Treasurer spent two minutes talking about silly names. That was his contribution to an economic debate. Then they attacked small business by saying: 'What a waste of money, to give it to small businesses that do things for other people. As long as it’s a small business related to climate change or anything that might be good for sustainability or the future, attack them. They're not worthy of being called a small business.'

Then they talked about flowers. The member for North Sydney spent a minute talking about flowers and the great waste. Then they went to their pet subject, their favourite topic at all times—that is, sacking people. They think this government spends too much money employing people.

Opposition members interjecting—

They go, 'Where's the money coming from?' This is all that is left. I will tell you where it is coming from and I will tell you where we have saved it, because I have already done some of that. And I will tell you where it will not go. It will not go to Liberal Party mates and to National Party mates, as under the previous Howard government. We saw enormous trunks of wasted money going to—if you want to talk about far-Left airy-fairy stuff—Liberal and National party mates. So it is clear in this place that after five years and more than two years since the last election we have done a good job to support jobs and the economy, and it is proven by the— (Time expired)

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

It is extraordinary. On a matter of public importance about Labor needing to bring its spending under control, from each of the Labor speakers we have heard, there has not been one mention of the word 'debt' or the word 'deficit'. The answer to why that is so is: they confirm they care about neither. We have seen something else with previous speakers—and I will exempt the last speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer. As well as avoiding the topic of this MPI and launching attacks on our side of politics, the Assistant Treasurer, once again, demonstrated the incredible capacity Labor has to mix its metaphors when trying to tell a story. The member for North Sydney rightly said that we all grow up learning stories and fairytales. And sayings are handed down, are they not, from family to family? I was horrified to hear the Assistant Treasurer say in response to the member for Cowper that they were going to open the barn door and let the fox into the henhouse.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm confused and I'm National Party!

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

At first I thought that it is just a reflection on the Assistant Treasurer. I should not single out our old friend the admiral; this is just him. I should not generalise and say that this is a Labor Party trend, but then I was reminded, I regret to say, that this is in fact a trend with those opposite. We had the Treasurer last year say: 'They have their heads stuck so far in the sand they cannot see the wood for the trees.' This is just a small illustration of the competence of those opposite. Of course, if they mix their metaphors on something so simple, it is no wonder they cannot get any of their budget numbers right.

Mr Ripoll interjecting—

I am invited to attack you on debt and I will. Thank you for the invitation. I was not going to forget in the last seven minutes, but since you have asked me to recite the debt story, I think I will, because you failed to mention it. As my friend the member for Higgins has been pointing out—you said you listened to those opposite—$96 billion was the level of net government debt left behind by the Hawke-Keating government.

We had the Assistant Treasurer saying, 'What did those opposite do when they got into power in 1996? They reduced spending.' Why would we have done that? All through the election campaign in those days before the Charter of Budget Honesty you had Labor ministers saying that the budget was in surplus. When the election was over and there was a new government the Treasury said, 'Actually the budget's in deficit by $10 billion.' Net government debt was $96 billion. It took more than a decade of responsible budgets to pay off $96 billion of net government debt. In fact debt-free day, I think, was on 20 or 21 April 2006. It took 10 years to pay it down.

What happened after that with surpluses? Money began to be banked into the Future Fund—something Wayne Swan is looking at very closely today.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He can't keep his hands off it.

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

That was the debt story. It was Labor's debt story of $96 billion; our story of paying off that debt. Remember when debt was paid off and money was being banked there was a guy called the member for Griffith—who is still here in this House—as the Leader of the Opposition saying that he was a fiscal conservative and he believed in surplus budgets. Then the Labor government was elected. What has happened since? Have they produced a surplus budget? No.

Ms Rishworth interjecting—

Don't you worry, we will go all through the years. Let us have a look at what has happened since. It started with $45 billion in the bank. Net debt is now projected to be $144 billion or $145 billion. Let us look at how accurate they are. Let us judge them on their precision. For the member for Kingston up the back, let us just take the last two years. Do you agree the GFC is over?

Ms Rishworth interjecting—

No, sorry; not on the talking points. That was a question without notice. Let us take the last two years. It is helpful that you do that. Let us just start from the end of the last election. The mid-year update was brought out in December 2011. It is worth having a look at what the Treasurer said debt would be for the 2012-13 year, what it would peak at. Back then, this is under two years ago, the Treasurer said, 'Net government debt would peak at $93 billion.' About six months later, in the budget of last year, he said it would peak at about $104 billion in the 2012-13 year. Then at the mid-year update at the end of last year he said $133 billion. This year's budget it is $143 billion. So from $93 billion to $143 billion—what is a $50 billion blow-out in two years? If you compare it with the debt blow-out in the last five or six years of the Keating government, where net government debt went from something like $17 billion to $96 billion, that is just a blow-out of about $79 billion or $80 billion.

You start to get the picture. Net government debt just escalates under Labor every single year. It is escalating today. You do not have to just look at their inaccuracy on net government debt projections; look at the last financial year. Over a similar period the initial projection for the budget deficit was $12 billion, then $22 billion, then $37 billion, then $44 billion on budget night. I do not have the final number yet; we will be getting it any day. I have to say that, if these guys were playing basketball, they would miss the backboard. If they were kicking for goal in an AFL match, they would hit the interchange bench. They would be out of camera shot.

It reminds me of an infamous aviator who filed a flight plan in the 1930s to fly, I think, from New York to California. He filed the flight plan, took off and landed in Ireland. His name was Wrong Way Corrigan. I am being a bit cruel to Wrong Way Corrigan because it transpired later that he actually meant to go in a different direction. It was all a bit of a trick.

But in relation to debt—$144 billion—we have had a $50 billion blow-out in two years. And now we have a $120 billion black hole blow-out. Those opposite will announce spending plans but they will not announce how they are paid for. It is always the same way under Labor: escalating debt and more taxes. It is the same way. When was Labor's last budget surplus?

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

1988?

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

It was in 1989. You have heard the story about what Labor does. If you look at the last couple of years, you will know the future under Labor. In their hearts, those on the government side know it. That is why the famous five stood up in caucus. Four members of this House—the fab four—started to ping the Treasurer for his irresponsibility. (Time expired)

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

It is no surprise that today the opposition have come in and started their new fear campaign. It is interesting that today, for the first time in question time, they did not ask about carbon pricing. And that is because their fear campaign on that issue has run out of steam. It has run out of steam and now they are casting their minds to the next fear campaign: 'What can we now scare the Australian people senseless about?' That is exactly what they are doing now: talking down our economy and putting concern out there, when really our economic fundamentals are very good in this country. Believe it or not, the opposition refuses to acknowledge that. They think, 'We did not succeed in scaring people out the carbon price, so we will move on now and scare people about the economy.'

I think it is important to get the facts on the table. I have to say that there seems to be an ability by the opposition to completely ignore the existence of a global financial crisis that this government faces. I know that those on the opposite side of the chamber are becoming protectionists. I imagine that the member for Casey and the member for Higgins would be concerned about the protectionist elements, but the member for Cowper is probably cheering for them on the sidelines. The opposition are becoming protectionists, but that should not stop them from looking—

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the member for Casey to resume his seat. We know what is happening. I can see what is happening, so he should resume his seat.

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

As I was saying, those on the opposite side of the chamber are becoming a protectionist party. However, they should look outside at the rest of the world to see what significant achievements this country has made and should stop this fear campaign about our economy.

Let's start with our growth. In the Euro zone, the economy after December 2007 shrank by 1.7 per cent. The Japanese economy shrank by 1.7 per cent and the US economy grew by just 1.2 per cent. What happened here in Australia? What happened here in Australia was 10.3 per cent growth. That is an astonishing achievement when you look around the rest of the world and at what we have done.

That did not happen by accident. That happened because this government acted when it was necessary. This government acted to protect jobs. I know that for those on the other side of the chamber it is a foreign concept to act to protect jobs; in fact, one could say that, for them, it is the opposite: they act to protect unemployment in some ways. But we acted to protect jobs. We made it very clear that we would act to protect jobs and, when growth returned to trend, we would do the economically responsible thing, make savings and return the budget to surplus.

That is exactly what we are doing. Over the last five budgets we have seen savings of $130-plus billion. That is because we know that it is responsible, when we are facing an issue where there is economic downturn, for the government to intervene, and when it is not facing economic downturn the government has to withdraw. That is exactly what we have done. We have made savings in a whole range of areas.

And, might I say, they are savings that the opposition continually vote against. There was the Chronic Dental Health Scheme, about which there has been some conjecture. That was a scheme that was rorted by many people. It was a scheme that was not means-tested. It did not matter whether you were a pensioner or a millionaire, you could get access to the scheme. It was a poorly targeted scheme but when we moved to close that down the Liberal Party voted against it.

Then there was the private health insurance rebate. That was a rebate that we believed should be properly and appropriately targeted, but those on the other side of the House voted against it. So, while we have been doing our bit to make savings, we have seen the opposition irresponsibly vote against that. That is why I can only see this MPI as representing crocodile tears. When the government have been working to produce savings, unfortunately the opposition have just voted against those measures.

It is not surprising that there is a $70 billion black hole in the opposition's figures. They say there are answers about where the money will come from but they will not actually tell us where. Which hospitals, which jobs, what education spending will they cut? But we do know where the money will go if they keep to their promises—and that is to their direct action plan.

We have not heard much about their direct action plan, but it is an incredibly expensive plan. We have been talking about wasting money. A direct action plan that costs billions and billions of dollars, with no change to climate change, one could call a direct waste of money. But the opposition, if they continue to uphold that they believe climate change is occurring and that they need to act, will implement, if they are ever elected, this direct action plan. That would mean a tax bill, if they do not find the savings, of $1,300 for every single household.

They will not tell us where the money is coming from. Often the Labor Party get in these debates, 'You're just making this up; there's no $70 billion black hole.' Of course, the $70 billion figure does not come from the Labor Party; it comes directly from the mouths of those opposite. It is time for the Liberal Party, who profess to be good economic managers, to be very clear about how they are going to fund this. Of course, this is on the back of an $11 billion black hole at the last election. It shows that when it comes to being transparent, those on the other side are a little sloppy.

Our economy is going very well. Since coming to office we have created 800,000 jobs.

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

You have?

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

This is despite 27 million jobs lost worldwide. Since coming to government there have been 800,000 jobs created. Are you disputing that for some reason?

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

You said you created them.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! All remarks are to be through the chair.

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

Since this government has come to office, there have been 800,000 new jobs. I know you do not want to talk about jobs. I can understand that those on the back bench may be embarrassed about Campbell Newman and about Barry O'Farrell. I can tell you: those on the front bench are cheerleading and saying, 'Bring on those job losses!' But this side of the House does care.

Let's go through some of the other important economic figures. Inflation is at 13-year lows. Interest rates are now at record lows of 3.5 per cent—compared to 6.75 per cent when the Liberal Party left office. There is a huge investment pipeline and very low debt. Those on the other side failed to compare debt around the developed world. As a percentage of GDP, Australia has a very low debt. We are bringing the budget back to surplus and we are making responsible cuts.

We heard those opposite talk about how great it was, how responsible they were, in the Howard years. A lot of people would remember the $121 million they spent on their Work Choices advertising campaign, and I do not think a lot of people would think that was very responsible spending. Do not forget the $10 million spent on the cloud-seeding rainmaker by the then Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, the member for Wentworth. There was also the cheese factory that never made cheese. And the list goes on. This was at a time when it was raining gold—and what did they do? They squandered it. We were given a difficult task when we came into office: to deal with the GFC and ensure that people were still employed. We are managing that in the economically responsible way.

At the end of the day I think the Australian people will see through those opposite. They will not be able to forget. There is also the Woolies and Coles tax that they are going to impose on the Australian people. I think the Australian people will see through the irresponsible economic ideas of those opposite. (Time expired)

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

After the ducking and weaving that we saw today in question time from the Treasurer and from the Prime Minister on their $120 billion black hole, it is no wonder at all that the people who were sent in here to defend this matter of public importance were the Assistant Treasurer, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer and the member for Kingston. I feel very sorry for them because Wayne Swan was not prepared to come into this chamber and provide the facts himself as to where the money is coming from.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He was incapable.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He was absolutely incapable, as my learned colleague highlights.

Apart from the member for Kingston blithely dismissing the discussion of this very important matter as merely a scare campaign, the thing that really struck me, when I listened more attentively to the Assistant Treasurer, the member for Lindsay, was that he said there was a terrible pattern of deceit occurring here. He actually had the temerity to point the finger at this side of the chamber. He suggested that somehow this is an issue for us. I have three words for him: pot, kettle, black. If we want to talk about a pattern let us focus on the deceit that has been practised on the Australian people.

Let's first focus on the promise that has been made by the Treasurer to deliver next year a $1.5 billion surplus. In question time today, when the Treasurer was asked to guarantee this $1.5 billion surplus, he talked about it being simply an aspiration. If we want to talk about deceit, why is the Treasurer not prepared to guarantee this tiny hurdle that he set himself, of a $1.5 billion surplus? Why isn't he prepared to put his job on the line? Why isn't he prepared to resign if he does not meet this tiny target? Because he simply does not believe what he says. He is practising a cruel hoax on the people of Australia. The reason he cannot guarantee it, the reason he will not put his job on the line, is that he has a huge problem—a $120 billion black hole. If there is a pattern on the other side, it is a pattern of spending and taxing.

Today we heard from Standard & Poor's that in fact we can expect a $20 billion deficit next year. This comes off the back of a previous report released by Macroeconomics that said it would be $15 billion. It seems to be going up—it seems to be trending in the wrong direction. The reason the $120 billion is so important is that it is $20,000 for the average four-person Australian family. We know that this $120 billion is not simply a one-off. What the government are doing with all of their new spending announcements is locking in recurrent spending. Why do we care about that? We care because at some point someone is going to have to pay for it. Someone is going to have to pay for the big-spending announcements of the government that have not been funded, that are not accounted for in the budget.

Despite the fact that the Prime Minister made the claim that every time she made an announcement she would properly provide for that announcement, she has not done so on this occasion; nor has the Treasurer. We are simply told we have to wait for MYEFO when it is announced and simply trust the government that they will somehow account for this spending. Well, it is not just us who are concerned on this side of the chamber about the government's big spending announcements. In fact, there are many on the other side of the chamber who are concerned.

I read with great interest an article by Stephen Scott and Jessica Irvine in today's Courier Mail in Brisbane which said Labor backbenchers are urging the Gillard government to raise taxes and cut perks for high earners to ensure it can pay for big-spending promises. Labor is doing that because it knows that is the only way to fund its promises. It comes off the back of the concerns raised by five Labor backbenchers who yesterday tackled the Treasurer about government spending priorities and the ability to pay for those priorities. Who are these brave souls on the opposite side of the chamber? Who are these people who were sick of the culture of deceit in this government? They were Senator Doug Cameron, Ed Husic, Janelle Saffin, Kelvin Thomson and Jeff Lyons. They are the only people who are concerned about the future generations of Australians who will be forced to foot the bill for the spending announcements.

But why has it got such urgency today? It is because we also read that the government, on top of their billions of dollars of announcements to do with their dental scheme, their Gonski plan and the NDIS, is going to spend an extra $1.4 billion in paying off childcare workers. Why is it doing that? It is because it is a union demand. It is a demand by United Voice, which is a union, and, as was said and reported in the paper today, it is going to be paid by this government. They have not denied it. They are going to announce it because Julia Gillard is being forced to. In an article today it says she is being forced to shore up union support for her leadership.

So when they talk about jobs on that side of the chamber, the only job they are really concerned about is Julia Gillard's job. The only job they are concerned about saving is Julia Gillard's. Julia Gillard says we have to wait for MYEFO, as does the Treasurer. We have to wait to understand how it is that they are going to fund this $120-billion black hole. They say we should trust them. If we were to trust the other side of the chamber, we would have believed them when they said this year they were going to deliver a deficit of only $12 billion. But that grew over an 18-month period from $12 billion to $23 billion to $37 billion and hit $44 billion. So how can we trust anything that the government has to say on this issue? How can we trust a Prime Minister who said in this term of parliament that she would throw open the curtains and let the sunshine in and yet, in response to this matter of public importance, we have not heard one word of detail from those opposite as to how their $120-billion black hole will be paid for? How can we trust a Prime Minister that only days before the last election promised that there would be no carbon tax are under the government she led? And she back flipped weeks later in order to do a dirty deal with the Greens so that she could form government.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And keep her job.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And so she could keep her job, as pointed out by my colleague. We cannot trust this government. This $120-billion black hole comes at the worst possible time. It comes at a time in our domestic environment where we know the retail and manufacturing sectors are hurting. We know that families are under increased stress, that cost of living is one of the biggest issues that families are facing and that small businesses are finding it really tough.

We know that overseas the financial crisis has not passed. In fact, the financial crisis we see in Greece and in France has morphed into a social crisis. I note that we hear constant refrains from the other side that Australia is doing well when you compare us to France and when you compare us to Greece. But they only want to compare us to the worst-performing economies. They only ever want to make that comparison.

This $120-billion black hole comes at a time where commodity prices are down 30 per cent over a 12-month period. We are seeing a huge revenue shortfall because of that. We are seeing company tax receipts being reduced and yet the government continues to spend and refuses to say how it will be paid for. There is a better way. We know from experience that a coalition government can right the wrongs of an irresponsible Labor government. We did it before when we repaid $96 billion of debt. We left a surplus $20 billion and we provided for the future with $70 billion in the Future Fund. The government want to raid that future fund to pay for their spending. There is a better way and that is with the election of a coalition government. (Time expired)