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

(14 My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his interview on Melbourne's 3AW yesterday with Neil Mitchell when he was asked, 'Will whoever win the next election need to raise the debt ceiling?' and the Treasurer answered, 'Well, that will be a matter for them.' Given that the Treasurer has admitted that increasing the debt ceiling will be a matter for them, will the Treasurer apologise for telling the House 'it is not necessary to do anything about the debt cap at all'?

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

In fact that is not what I said yesterday. I said it was not necessary to lift the debt cap, we would review it in the usual way and we would amend it if it was required. That is what I said in the House yesterday. Now what we have here is a situation where the shadow Treasurer is running around quoting the market value of Commonwealth government securities when he knows that what counts for the debt cap is, of course, the face value.

Mr Hockey interjecting—

Absolutely; I am pleased that you have finally admitted to that. Now if he would like to go to the AOFM website he could have a look there and see what the face value of securities on issue is. Currently the face value on issue is $268 billion—but he wanted to come into this House and pretend it was a far higher figure. So that is all part of his strategy for fiscal fear mongering. Well, I can certainly say to the shadow Treasurer that it does not need to be lifted in this year or next year.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, 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 update the House on how the budget is investing in education to build a smarter and fairer nation? How is this being received?

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 Canberra for the question. I know how important it is to her that these students in her electorate are receiving the support from this government. Let me just look quickly at an 'us versus them' scenario to let people understand what we have done in the past and what we want to do in the future.

In the member's electorate we have spent $131 million. Seventeen libraries have been improved, 23 multipurpose halls and 21 classrooms—incidentally, about 3,000 libraries have been supported nationwide. When they were in office there were around 3,000 flagpoles supplied. Then let us look at the national curriculum and the introduction of a national curriculum with world's best standard material to be taught to kids in schools. The only contribution that we have had from the opposition was to pull the Union Jack out of the bottom drawer and reheat the history wars.

Then let us look at trades training centres—fantastic facilities. In the member's electorate she has two trades training centres. Eight schools benefit, and nationwide over 1,000 schools are benefiting from trades training centres. The coalition managed to knock up about a dozen Australian technical colleges and then wanted to cut this program in the last budget. That gives you an indication of both priorities and track record between this Labor government, which is committed to education, and those opposite, who are committed to cutting it.

In the budget we laid out the plan for the future supported by $9.8 billion of investment. It is a future where Australian schools keep pace with schools in our region, a future where Australian students get to reach their full potential and a future where a student, no matter where they live and no matter how much money their parents earn, get the same high-quality education.

I am asked by the member how it has been received. There are plenty of things that I could refer to, but I thought I would just take the Australian Primary Principals Association media release. Here it is, 'Federal budget school funding welcomed'. It is important to refer to it, because these are the school leaders and this is what they said:

It is very pleasing to see the increased school funding in the Budget for the next six years, a system of properly indexed funding for schooling based on the appropriate school resource standard and loadings based on need. This will be the backbone of school improvement.

We absolutely agree and that is what we are totally committed to, and that is what is provided for in the budget.

The Leader of the Opposition does not want to support the National Plan for School Improvement, which will see increased investment going to schools around the country. That means they will get less money, not more. Yes, they want to sack one in seven teachers, but they are not willing to commit to a National Plan for School Improvement which means that we as a nation can be sure that our students are getting the very best education they deserve.

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

Just before I call the member for North Sydney, those wonderful students who are part of the Rotary Adventure and Citizenship are back with us again. I thought that after the experience this morning, they would not turn up. But they are getting a very good dose of parliamentary education and we welcome them to the chamber at question time. The member for North Sydney.

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

I refer the Treasurer to his answer to a question on 21 May when he said, 'At the end of each year we will be within the $250 billion cap—and he explained the face value of gross debt. Given that his own budget papers give four-year forecasts on net debt, why will the Treasurer not come clean with the Australian people and explain exactly how much gross debt at face value will be owed by Australian taxpayers under his four-year budget?

Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—

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

Order! The member for Herbert will leave the chamber under 94(a).

The member for Herbert then left the chamber.

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

It is appropriate to do it each year at budget time.

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

This is budget time!

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

Exactly, and I have just said to you that we will not need to lift our debt limit this financial year or next financial year. I have made that point and that should be sufficient. But if he is very interested in this, he can go to the AOFM website and go through the material. They are regularly briefing the market about issuance. They are doing all of those things and that is where this is appropriately done.

But what is this all really about? What this is about is that they are just acutely embarrassed about the fact that this Labor government had the guts to come out and say that we would have to have a deficit this year to support jobs and growth. We have had the guts to say that because that is the responsible thing to do in our economy.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order and refer you to page 566 of the Practice

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order! The member for Mackellar has the right to make the point of order.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I refer you to page 566 of the Practice where it says that should a minister be unable to answer a substantive question and give a substantive answer, as the Treasurer has clearly indicated he is unable to do, he should undertake to come back with the information or else be sat down.

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

The member for Mackellar will resume her seat.

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

Thank you, Speaker. I was just pointing out that in the Liberal Party's world there is no level of responsible debt. Their approach to our current situation is that they would take an axe to health and education and an axe to jobs in our economy. Just because the global economy has taken an axe to our budget, that does not mean to say that we should take an axe to jobs and health and education in this economy. That is clearly what they would do, and that is the approach that they advocated during the global financial crisis. They said that we should not have a responsible level of debt to support jobs and growth in our economy and they would have seen this economy go into recession. They would not have had the guts to do what we did when we were faced with that set of circumstances.

We have been faced with a new set of circumstances and we have responded in a responsible way. We responded in this way because we on this side of the House understand how important employment and job security is to all Australians wherever they live. Those on that side of the House are just playing from the playbook of the Tea Party in the United States. There is no level of responsible debt in the views of those people. In the views of those extremists and some people over there, there is no level of responsible debt and therefore when you hit a bump in the economy, when something happens globally, you do not do anything to support your economy. You take an axe to it.

That is something this government will never do. Everyone over here is really proud of what we are doing to support jobs and growth. Those opposite would do directly the opposite. They would slash and cut and burn and follow the Campbell Newman approach and cut jobs right across our economy. That is not the Australian way.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. Will the minister update the House—

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order! When I have some quiet, the member for Makin will commence his answer again.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. Will the minister update the House on the government's responsible plan to build a stronger economy in this budget? What impact would more extreme savings measures have and why is it important to be transparent about those measures?

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

I thank the member for Makin for his question. The government has a responsible plan to build a stronger economy and to support jobs and growth. A responsible plan means that your plan must be fully funded and fully costed. That is why the budget that the Treasurer handed down earlier in the week sets out and locks in a fully funded 10-year plan to deliver on big initiatives, big nation-building initiatives, that will make our economy stronger and our society smarter and fairer—initiatives like DisabilityCare and our Plan for School Improvement.

To fund these initiatives we have had to make some choices and we have had to deliver $43 billion worth of responsible savings measures. Tonight the Leader of the Opposition will have his opportunity to show us the sorts of choices that he is prepared to make, to lay his plans out on the table so the Australian people can see what it is he would do if he were the Prime Minister. When he does that, to make sure that they are responsible plans they should be fully funded and they should be fully costed. Fully costed does not mean going off and getting some dodgy costings from an accounting firm of the sort that we saw them use at the last election. We have set up the Parliamentary Budget Office. They should be properly costed in a proper way.

We saw today, however, a bit of a sneak preview of the approach that the opposition will take, when they came into this place and voted against a bill to crack down on tax avoidance—new measures to crack down on profit shifting and tax avoidance. If there is a rort, a loophole or a rip-off, they are in there to protect it. That is what they did today: they came in to protect it.

When it comes to the challenge of trying to put in place a responsible budget, we know that they will not crack down on the tax avoiders. So how will they fill the big black hole that has been generated by all of the unfunded commitments they have been making? The shadow Assistant Treasurer gave us a clue today when he was asked. He said, 'Cuts will have to be made.' That comes on the back of what the Leader of the Opposition had to say just a month ago, when he said, 'Some of the things we do will hurt.' The question is: who will they hurt? They will hurt families. They will hurt pensioners. We will see cuts to payments, cuts to pensions—cuts to the bone. That is what we will see from the opposition.

The Leader of the Opposition needs to make sure that he takes the opportunity tonight to put his plans on the table, to show people what it is he intends to do, so that they have the choice between a government that has fully funded commitments and will deliver big reforms like DisabilityCare and a Plan for School Improvement or an opposition whose only plan is to make savage cuts, cuts to the bone. (Time expired)