Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister for Disability Reform. How does this budget help us build a fairer society by locking in funding for disability care?

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

I thank the member for Greenway very much for her question and for her dedication to this issue in her electorate. This budget does deliver a fairer deal, particularly for people with disability and also for their families and carers. It provides the hope for those Australians who know that, at some time in the future, they too may be affected by disability. They may be affected or their loved ones may be affected. In this budget we want to end the cruel lottery that has faced so many people with disability over such a long period of time—the cruel lottery that has said, 'The level of care or support that you receive depends on where you live or how you got your disability.'

This budget is all about making sure that we do have a fairer nation. As Dr Ken Baker, from National Disability Services, has said today:

This Budget is the first to make disability support its centrepiece.

We have made the choice and it is a choice. As the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have made clear, both yesterday and today, budgets are about choices and a choice that the government have made is to put disability care at the centre of our concerns.

We have also made the choice to create a strong and stable funding stream right out into the future so that people with a disability, their carers and their families can see that the commitment this government is making for their care and support is funded well into the future—in fact, for 10 years to come.

In just a few weeks, on 1 July, the government will launch DisabilityCare Australia. It is a very, very exciting time. The first stage of the National Disability Insurance Scheme will see 26,000 people, in different launch sites around the country, start to come into DisabilityCare Australia, start to receive the care and support that people really need. That is why it was so disappointing to see the Leader of the Opposition say today that there was no hope in this budget. There is hope at the centre of this budget: hope for people with a disability, hope for their carers and families that they have never had before.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that the minister is impugning improper motives on the Leader of the Opposition. He has just ridden 1,000 kilometres, from Adelaide to Geelong, for carers and the minister is trying to pretend that somehow he does not support DisabilityCare, which we have already agreed to.

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

The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The member for North Sydney has the call.

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

My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, isn't it the case that when the National Broadband Network and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation are added into the budget, the budget actually never delivers a surplus?

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

Here we go! He is going to redefine the way the accounting is done in the budget. He wants to rely not on the underlying cash level, he wants to do the headline cash level. But that is not something you ever did in government. All we are doing is accounting for the operation of bodies like the NBN—

Mr Hockey interjecting—

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

Order! The member for North Sydney is warned!

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

EFIC, Australia Post and other organisations in the same way that the Howard government accounted for them. That is what is going on. But what we have seen with this question, like we saw with the previous question, is the coalition's fiscal fearmongering. They want to go out there and grossly exaggerate the amount of debt we have got in our economy, which is modest. We have got net debt at 11.1 per cent of GDP. That is like someone with $100,000 worth of income owing less than $12,000. It is a modest level of debt and we have it because we are supporting jobs and our economy when it is needed. But their position is really clear because, when they ask these questions, what they are really saying is: 'You shouldn't have done that. What you should have done is take an axe to the budget and an axe to jobs.' Just because the global economy takes an axe to our revenues, we are not going to take an axe to jobs like you would. We are not going to do that.

We have a modest level of debt. It is a buffer because our revenues have been written down to support our economy, and everyone on this side of the House is proud of that, proud that we are supporting our economy, proud that we are supporting jobs, proud that this government has got the guts to get behind our economy and proud that we do not go down the austerity route that those opposite want to go down with all of their fiscal fearmongering and all of the consequences that come with it. When they are going on about debt, what they are really on about is their subterranean agenda to take an axe to the social safety net. That is what they are on about, and that is what his speech to the IPA was all about: do some fiscal fearmongering to set the scene to slash health and education, to cut to the bone. There is a very clear choice following this budget, and Australians will know what it is.

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

My question is to the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth. Will the minister outline to the House how last night's budget builds a smarter and fairer nation by investing in our children's education?

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

I thank the member for La Trobe for her question, knowing her strong commitment to education in her electorate. The fact is that last night's budget placed caring for Australians in the future front and centre of the agenda of this government and ensured that young Australians and those with disability have hope in the years to come. Let's not forget: in this country year-9 students from the poorest quarter of Australian families are on average three years of schooling behind students from the wealthiest quarter. Let's not forget that, despite some pockets of success, we have slipped globally in our international standings. Our neighbours are pulling away while we are standing still. We on this side of the House know that a good education can be the difference between getting the high-skilled jobs of the 21st century or being left behind, and that is why we made the smart education investments in last night's budget: $9.8 billion to drive the reforms in the National Plan for School Improvement, an investment I know everyone on this side of the chamber is proud of.

I am asked about reactions, and I cannot say the same for the conservative side of politics. There are some exceptions, as I said yesterday; I do not agree with everything Premier O'Farrell says, but on the plan for school improvement he is pretty correct. It provides additional resources and fairer distribution to deliver higher standards and better outcomes in schools across New South Wales.

Unfortunately for the schoolchildren of the nation, the Leader of the Opposition does not share this vision. There he was again on Sunrise this morning with Kochie, who gave him another chance to discard the lycra and put the politics aside; but, true to form, the Leader of the Opposition went negative. The host says: 'You have time to think about this—the whole Gonski report, the education funding. New South Wales has already signed up. Will you keep the deal?' Mr Abbott: 'Well, we don't know what the deal is.' It is no surprise there that he has not bothered to read something again, but Kochie was surprised. He said, 'You haven't rung your mate Barry O'Farrell—he's in the next electorate to you—and said, "What's the details?"' The Leader of the Opposition: 'We're not going to sign up to anything were not convinced is a good deal.'

Look at the contrast: a conservative premier who sees the importance of education, understands how the National Plan for School Improvement works and has signed up to it to deliver an extra $5 billion to students in that state versus the Leader of the Opposition here, who thinks the injustice in the education system is that public schools get too much funding, has not even read the National Plan for School Improvement and sees no hope in a budget that delivers $9.8 billion in extra investment for schools around the nation.

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

My question is to the Treasurer. In his National Press Club speech the Treasurer claimed that there is a fiscal consolidation in the budget of $23 billion. Given that, as a percentage of the economy, at no time has this government had spending as low as the last year of the coalition government and given that, over the next four years, the government is expecting to spend $76 billion more and collect $103 billion more in revenue, where does this claim for smaller government come from?

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

I do thank the shadow Treasurer for his question. We should first of all start with revenue and then go on to expenditure, because those opposite claim there has been no revenue write-down. They would be receiving, if they were in government, the same advice that we are receiving, which is that for 2012-13 we have had a revenue write-down of $17 billion and larger ones over the next two years. They would receive that advice from the Treasury, but they claim that that has not happened. It is just like the global financial crisis: it never happened. And now the revenue write-downs have not happened.

Then, to go on with their fiction, they run around the place with a whole lot of figures that exaggerate spending. One of their criticisms is that we now spend $100 billion more in our budget than was spent when we came to government—ignoring the fact that the economy is 13 per cent bigger. The fact is that economies grow, but when it comes to our spending levels our spending levels as a proportion of GDP are about on an average with where they were when you were in government. But you insist, like you do with debt, on the spending side of the budget to go around and make all these extreme exaggerations. The reason you are doing it is that you are not going to put your policies out before the election. You want to be able to run around and claim: 'Oh, there's a spending problem. There's no revenue problem,' and try to get through an election campaign like Campbell Newman. If you get elected then you will slash and burn. That is what all of this is about.

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

The Treasurer cannot use the word 'you'.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You are not responsible for any of the things the Treasurer is talking about, and I ask him to at least try to maintain some decorum in the chamber after all his years of experience in this place.

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

The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I think everybody can take some lessons about decorum in the chamber. I do remind the Treasurer of the use of the word 'you'. The Treasurer has the call.

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

If you look at the facts—if we get them out there on the table—what they will show is that our expenditure levels are broadly, as a percentage of GDP, where they were when that mob over there were in government. So much for the spending problem. These are figures which are easily available. They are there, but they choose once again to exaggerate what is going on. We over the forward estimates have got spending growth of, on average, 1.1 per cent.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We know the Treasurer is under a great deal of stress, but he has completely ignored your admonition from the chair. I ask you to draw him back to the standing orders.

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

The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Treasurer has the call, and I do advise everybody. I know it is an arcane principle, but you are all speaking through the chair. The use of the word 'you' is inappropriate.

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

I will just conclude with this one fact: the tax to GDP ratio this year is 21.5 per cent. When we were elected, the level we inherited from those opposite was 23.7 per cent. If we had that tax to GDP ratio that we inherited from them, that they had when they were last in government, we would be running a surplus of $6 billion and we would have increased revenue of $24 billion this year. That proves the fact there is a big revenue challenge. That is why we have taken the decisions we had to take: absolutely necessary to support jobs and growth. And God help us what would have happened if they were in government in these circumstances, because they would have slashed and burned, austerity for austerity's sake. They subscribe to the theory that you can cut your way to growth. Well, you cannot. That is what has happened in Europe, it proves that is wrong, but they have been captured by the mad Tea Party elements of the Liberal Party and the IPA.