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

I move—

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

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

Come on, debate the economy. I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for North Sydney moving immediately:

That this House notes that:

(1) both the Prime Minister and Treasurer have failed to stand by their solemn guarantee to deliver a surplus in the 2012-13 Financial Year;

(2) the Prime Minister gave a guarantee to Laurie Oakes and the Australian people to deliver a surplus in the 2012-13 Financial Year on 13 November 2010;

(3) the Treasurer said three days before the last election on Channel 7’s Sunrise that Labor would deliver a surplus in 2012-13 'come hell or high water';

(4) the Treasurer has committed to delivering a Budget surplus in 2012-13 on over 150 occasions since May 2010;

(5) the inherent contradictions in last week’s MYEFO, including not providing funding for Labor’s promised programs including the Government’s promise to:

(a) deliver the Gonski Education reforms, with not a single dollar to implement these reforms in MYEFO, in fact containing a $3.9 billion hit on education;

(b) deliver the National Disability Insurance Scheme, with not a single dollar, beyond the trials in the Budget, contained in MYEFO, in fact containing a $1.6 billion hit on health;

(c) deliver real action on the Murray Darling Basin, with not a single dollar contained in MYEFO for a plan announced by the Prime Minister on Friday last week; and

(d) implement the outcomes of the Asian Century Whitepaper without any additional money, instead instituting cuts of $500 million to research funding; and

(6) the Treasurer has announced at least 27 new or increased taxes since coming to power, and calls on the Treasurer to rule out any further tax increases.

This is a government that has now reached new heights. Today, the commitment to a surplus became a plan. Today, the Prime Minister said it is on track. Previously, the commitment to a surplus was a wholesome promise—it was a guarantee, it was in the budget. In fact, in 2010, a year that will live on in infamy, the Prime Minister said that the budget would be back in surplus in 2012-13:

Laurie Oakes: Guaranteed?

Prime Minister Gillard: Yes, the budget is coming back to surplus, Laurie, in 2012-13 as promised.

This is why it is urgent.

Three days before the last election the Treasurer said on Sunrise:

TREASURER: Well we’re getting back into surplus in three years, Kochie

KOCH: Ok. Come hell or high water?

TREASURER: Come hell or high water …

In 2011, the Prime Minister said:

… my commitment to a surplus in 2012-13 was a promise made and it will be honoured.

Then, a few days later, the Prime Minister said: 'You cannot run this country if you cannot manage its budget.' Well, the Prime Minister should resign if that is the case. You cannot run this country if you cannot manage its budget. Then, after that, the Prime Minister said: 'It is important for families at this time that the government does not add to inflationary pressures in the economy. That is why it is vital to get the budget back into surplus and back into the black.'

The Treasurer never gave up on his promise. In the budget speech on 10 May 2011 he said:

We'll be back in the black by 2012-13, on time, as promised.

The alternative—meandering back to surplus—would compound the pressures in our economy and push up the cost of living for pensioners and working people.

So, the Treasurer said in this place on budget night, before the Australian people, that 'meandering back to surplus'—that is, avoiding a surplus—will put pressure on our economy and push up the cost of living for pensioners and working people. These weasel words.

We know this: the document that gets the greatest workout in the Prime Minister's office is a thesaurus. Every time, they try to look for a different word to describe a potential surplus. You get your 'promise', you get your 'guarantee', you get your 'commitment', you get your 'road map', you get your 'path' and you get your 'plan'. But this is a government that has not delivered a surplus and I suspect it never will deliver a surplus. It will never deliver an honest surplus because it is fiddling the numbers, and fiddling them writ large.

There is deceit on that side of the House when it comes to the budget, and the government is incapable of telling the truth to the Australian people. It should be held accountable in this place, and the Australian people should be holding it to account for its failure to properly manage the budget. Every single step of the way Labor engages more in spin, more in subterfuge, than it does in being honest and truthful with the Australian people. These are the same taxpayers who are in the gallery, the same taxpayers who are listening to this debate, the same taxpayers who have to repay up to $257 billion of gross debt. They are the same taxpayers who get hit with flood levies, who get hit with the mining tax and the carbon tax. They are the same taxpayers who have faced 26 new or increased taxes since Labor has come into government, the same taxpayers who are facing the intergenerational challenges that Labor is refusing to deal with, particularly in areas like industrial relations and dealing with productivity.

The Labor Party has plans; it has lots of plans. This week it delivered a plan for the Asian century. The only problem was that the plan had no money. I have heard of a tax with no revenue, I have heard of a plan with no money and I have even heard of schools with no students and hospitals with no patients. I have also heard of a government with no credibility. And I have heard of a government and a Treasurer with no honesty—none. They are bereft of honesty, bereft of personal integrity, because they do not have the capacity to stand before the Australian people and be honest. Instead, they held it as a massive badge of honour. They would deliver the surplus. They would turn around the forgotten years of Kevin Rudd. They would turn them all around. It was a government that had lost its way: 'We'll get it back on track; we will deliver a surplus.'

And of course, true to form, Labor has not delivered a surplus since 1989—before the member for Longman was born. The member for Longman was not even born in the time of a Labor surplus. Mobile phones were not even conceived back when Labor last delivered a surplus. But now, rest assured. The Prime Minister says, 'We have a plan.' The Prime Minister says, 'We're on track.' But it is a track going nowhere. It is a track familiar to Burke and Wills; 150 years ago they lost their way. They will find their way to a surplus. Burke and Wills will deliver a surplus at the very same time that the Labor Party will deliver a surplus. We have only been waiting 150 years thus far.

And of course we know they briefed Phil Coorey at the Sydney Morning Herald. Far be it from me to give him a pat on the back for anything, but on this occasion I will break new ground. And I say to you: we know the Treasurer was briefing the Sydney Morning Herald to look at the key components of MYEFO to walk away from a surplus. We know that—deceitfully walking away from a surplus. And in doing so the government has undermined not just its own words but its actions. They claim to have $16 billion of saves this financial year, but 80 per cent of those are increased taxes for the Australian people. That is not a save; that is a punishment.

The Australian people have had enough of the deceit. The Australian people have had enough of the untruths. The Australian people have had enough of promises and plans, commitments—all the other weasel words. The bottom line is that the Labor Party must deliver. It must actually deliver on its words if it is to be trusted. And if we have a government that cannot be trusted, bring on an election and get a government that can be trusted with the nation's economy.

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

I second the motion. Standing orders should be suspended, because the final fig leaf hiding Labor's incompetence and economic ineptitude is withering before our eyes. The surplus is dead. Despite Labor's best efforts at budget fiddles and budget fraudulence, this government is finally being bludgeoned by the fiscal consequence of years of reckless spending. The government is squirming away from its non-negotiable promise to deliver a surplus. The pretence of having your cake and eating it as well has been exposed—and doesn't everybody know it.

Standing orders need to be suspended, because we see today that only one in four Australians believe that Labor will be able to deliver its promise to get back into the black before the election. One in four, 25 per cent of Australians only, believe that this government can deliver a surplus—will get back into the black—after years of economic growth, after the biggest boom in our history, after terms of trade that were at 150-year highs, after an increase in commodity prices of only 350 per cent! Yet they still cannot deliver a surplus, and 75 per cent of Australians can see straight through the rhetoric of this government, see the emptiness of Labor's economic promises.

That is why standing orders must be suspended. There is a crisis of confidence right across the community; there has been now for 18 months to two years: 13 per cent of all disposable income across 7½ million households is being saved, because people have no confidence to spend money. No wonder retail is on its knees. That is $120 billion taken out of the economy in one year in savings. Why? The only reason is that people have no confidence that this government will do what it says it will do. Seventy-five per cent today confirmed that they do not believe that this government will deliver a surplus. They do not believe any of the nonsense this government has been peddling in budget after budget—the shonky forecasts, the endless spending, the reckless spending. It goes on and on and on.

The economic fraudulence of this government was so starkly exposed when, as my colleague said, within a day of the release of the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, it was revealed that the first quarter's payment of the resources super tax was a bit fat zero. The Treasurer became the first Treasurer in history to initiate a tax that does not actually raise any money! In fact, we are told that it could in the years ahead lead to the payment of money back to companies. This is a oncer; this is a first.

The important thing is that walking away from a surplus does have major consequences. It will result in more unfunded spending. It will open the floodgates to spending. The $120 billion black hole is only the start of it—this will open the floodgates for more spending. We have heard it today, with the Asia vision: billions of dollars being promised at this dispatch box, by implication. Where is that coming from? It is on top of the $120 billion black hole. We will see more borrowing, more debt, more issuing of government bonds, more pressure on the Australian dollar.

Penny Wong, the finance minister, said in her first speech that 'this government has made it clear that the return to surplus is not negotiable'. Well, this government is crab-walking away from that promise, made over 150 times in the last two years. The backflip over this non-negotiable commitment to deliver a surplus is leaving Australia more vulnerable, more exposed—we need a change of government if we are to remove the crisis of confidence that is so endemic in our community. (Time expired)

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Mike Symon (Deakin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The question is that the motion be agreed to. If I do not get to put the question, you won't get to have a division. I call the Leader of the House.

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

Dear, oh dear. It is very difficult following this duo over here, the shadow Treasurer and the shadow finance minister, who contradicted each other from the mover and seconder of this motion. We had a little showpiece from Joe. It would have been better if he had the tutu and the wand. But he stood up here and he had is own little fantasy. What we have here is motion to suspend standing orders. That is what is before this House right now. And in spite of the fact that the shadow Treasurer did not mention the need for a suspension of standing orders, we let that go through to the keeper—because we are generous people on this side of the House, and we thought we'd give him a go—it is a fact that, if these standing orders are suspended, you'll knock over the matter of public importance, and the matter of public importance is from the member for North Sydney on the same topic that he has moved the suspension of standing orders on! So when this suspension is knocked over, because it does not get an absolute majority, he will have to stand up and give the same speech! It is absolutely, extraordinarily incompetent for a tactics committee that decides in advance to have typed out suspensions of standing orders to not give consideration to what comes next—to what it knocks off if the suspension is carried. What an absolute farce.

The member for North Sydney raised Laurie Oakes. I am pleased he did raise Laurie Oakes, because Laurie Oakes wrote a cracker of an article on Saturday, where he fingered the shadow Treasurer for his incompetence: 'Voters entitled to a bit more honesty', is what Laurie Oakes had to say. And he said:

The policy bigwigs who heard Joe Hockey's provocative speech to the Institute of Economic Affairs in London back in April could hardly help but be impressed. He spoke about the age of entitlement being over.

That is what he had to say in London. But this is what Laurie Oakes says about Joe Hockey back on home turf:

If Hockey was fair dinkum about what he said in London he would have welcomed the Baby Bonus and Health Insurance Rebate savings. Instead, like Abbott, he saw an opportunity to score political points and grabbed it.

And that is all that we see from those opposite. Every single day is just about the politics of the day, let alone the politics of the month or the year or the term in parliament; it is all about the politics of the day. And that is why this motion should be knocked off, and there should not be a suspension of standing orders, because this is pure indulgence from those opposite. They say they are worried about the age of entitlement—according to the shadow Treasurer—but back here say the opposite.

It is just like the Leader of the Opposition who, when he is here, says the economy is crumbling and there is crisis—the carbon price was going to ruin the economy. But when he goes overseas, he talks the economy up and has to acknowledge how well this government's economic management is. And let us have a look at how good it is compared with the Howard era: unemployment, lower under Labor; inflation, lower under Labor; home loan mortgage rates, lower under Labor; wages growth, higher under Labor; household savings, higher under Labor; taxes as a percentage of GDP, lower under Labor; government spending, lower under Labor; business investment, higher under Labor; the investment pipeline, through the roof under Labor, with the confidence in this economy; infrastructure spending, higher under Labor; industrial disputes, lower under Labor; labour force participation, higher under Labor—on every single economic indicator, this government has outperformed the former government.

I noticed the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, in an op-ed piece in the Australian Financial Review, speaking about his vision for the future. And what did he have to say? 'If you want to look at the direction for the future, you've got to look in the past'. That is the problem with this bloke and those opposite. Not only are they incapable of embracing the future; they are incapable of acknowledging the present, because they are stuck in the past, they have been engage in an unrelenting dummy-spit since they failed to form government in 2010.

And then they have the hide to speak about budget surpluses and deficits. Well, they can get fair dinkum: they can vote for our savings. They have got all these unfunded promises. They have not even bothered to look at the detail in MYEFO. Let us have a look at what the shadow Treasurer has had to say. He said the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was not in MYEFO—wrong, wrong, wrong. He said terms of trade are at a record high—wrong. Then he went on to say:

… you have trend growth of 3 to 3.5 per cent on their projections, which I think is a little generous …

Wrong. If he had bothered to read MYEFO, he would know what GDP growth is forecast to be. The fact is that those opposite have absolutely no credibility when it comes to the economic debate of this country. The Leader of the Opposition, when it came to their budget black hole, had this to say, when he was asked about it:

… it is absolutely fanciful.

And yet, just a couple of weeks later, the shadow finance minister, when asked about it on Meet the Press on 4 September, said:

No, it's not a furphy.

Then we had the shadow Treasurer say to Fran Kelly on Radio National, on 11 May:

… we've already outlined that; $50 billion worth of cuts …

Then when he got asked on Sky News Australian Agenda:

What's the quantum of savings that you've got so far?

His answer was:

I'm not going to tell you …

It's a little secret! Well, we know about their costings at the last election—bodgied up, and the people that they got to do the mates' rates costings got pinged for it.

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

They weren't mates' rates!

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

And now his big complaint is not that they got it wrong and not that they got pinged for it; it is that they did not give him mates' rates; he had to pay top dollar to get those bodgie forecasts during the last election campaign!

Then we have the person who I understand is the shadow minister to my portfolio. I must say this is just a theory, because I have seen no evidence that he is engaged in infrastructure and transport whatsoever. But this is what he had to say:

We identified $50 billion worth of savings prior to the last election. A lot of those are not available at this time.

So he has said that they are trying to book the savings and then that they are not available. They are completely all over the shop when it comes to these issues. That is why this week they have been like a broken record. They are like a band who have run out of hits. What we saw yesterday was that they sat around in the morning and they said, 'Are there any new ideas?' 'No,' they said—their favourite word—'No, no, no.' So they went back to a greatest hits collection. We had carbon pricing, we had boats and we had dirt. Today they went to a different strategy. Today, after their caucus meeting—where they had divisions about wheat, divisions about water, divisions about all of their strategies—they decided, 'We'll just go for the mud bucket straight up.' So they went for the mud bucket in question 1. That did not work. They went for smear in question 2. That did not work, so they just got right down there in the gutter, right up-front. They just have not got the message that the Australian people see this bloke as destructively negative, with nothing to say about the future of this country. There was not a single question this week about the Asian century white paper—not a question. It is absolutely extraordinary. And now they have the hide to say— (Time expired)

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

The Prime Minister has the call.

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

I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.