Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

The Government’s plan to allow itself to run up unlimited debt.

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—

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It appears there has been something of a competition going on in the cabinet this week: who can conduct the biggest backflip? Who can create the biggest gap between pre-election rhetoric and post-election reality? It has been quite a competition. You would think, wouldn't you, Madam Speaker, that the Minister for Education had it all sewn up with his clear cast-iron commitments before the election and his backflip of this week—the Pyne gap of difference between his pre-election promise and his post-election reality. But the Treasurer is a competitive man. He is not going to be bullied out of the prize of the biggest backflip from pre-election rhetoric to post-election reality. This is a Treasurer who railed against debt before the election, who voted against increases in the debt cap, despite their denials in this place and the other place, and who told the Australian people that one of their three great priorities was to pay back the debt. What he did not tell the Australian people is that, to pay back the debt, he is going to increase it first.

Did the people of Australia, when they voted on 7 September, really think they were voting for a Liberal government that would go into an alliance with the Greens to abolish the debt cap? Is that what they thought they were getting on 7 September? We saw the Treasurer with equal measures of chutzpah and hypocrisy say, casually, that he was going to increase the debt cap by 67 per cent, a $200 billion increase. That was bad enough. That came as a great shock to Liberal voters across the country who voted for a party that said they would pay back the debt. But they are going even further; they are voting with the Greens to abolish the debt cap. The Minister for Immigration very helpfully showed us yesterday who the leader of the Greens is. Here is a picture of the Leader of the Greens, whom the Treasurer is doing a deal with to abolish the debt cap in Australia. Is that what Liberal supporters voted for on 7 September? Is that what the Australian people voted for on 7 September?

We hear a lot of rhetoric from the government about debt. Let us see what they said when they were in opposition. We have heard a lot from the Prime Minister. There is a lot to choose from, but my favourite one is when Tony Abbott, the then Leader of the Opposition, said on 2UE on 13 May 2011:

A Government which is supposedly getting debt and deficit under control is not a Government that suddenly wants to borrow an extra $50 billion. It’s like saying to your bank manager ‘look mate I’ve got my spending under control, oh but at the same time can you extend my credit card limit’. I mean, really.

Indeed! This man is now the Prime Minister. He says he is paying off the debt. But he does not want an increase in the credit card limit; he has gone to his bank manager and asked, 'Why do I need a limit at all? Please get rid of my limit.' That is the Prime Minister of Australia!

Here is another doozy, from the man who is now Treasurer. He was talking about debt limits—in this House, at this dispatch box—and pointing out that the previous government had had to increase the debt limit. He had a startling revelation to make about who was voting with the government to increase the debt limit. He pointed out that the debt limit needed to be increased. He pointed out—breathlessly, I am sure, beating his chest:

They were supported by their mates, the Independents, and the Greens. The Greens would have a trillion dollars if they could.

That is what the member for North Sydney said: 'The Greens would actually have no debt limit if they could, and the government is going to give it to them!' This party that is against debt—the Liberals—is going to give the Greens a no-debt-limit budget. This is a stark example of the Liberal Party and the National Party saying one thing before the election and doing the exact opposite after the election.

The Treasurer had a course of action available to him. In fact, he had two potential courses of action available to him. He could have released the mid-year economic forecast. He says it is coming in the coming days. He could have released it before the parliament voted, because the Labor Party said: 'We're not going to do what you did and vote against the debt cap increases. We're going to move an amendment to say $400 billion is justified by the figures on the public record. If you want more than that, issue MYEFO.'

But, of course, the Treasurer did not want to do that. We could not have that! It would mean the impact of his decisions would be there for all to see: the impact of his $8.8 billion transfer to the Reserve Bank, which has increased our debt cost by $1 billion over the next four years; the impact of his decision to give a tax break to people with more than $2 million in their superannuation accounts; and the impact of his decision to water down Labor's measures to improve the integrity of the tax system. He would not want to do that. He certainly did not want to say, 'All right, what we'll do is increase the debt cap to $400 billion, which is justified by the mid-year economic statement, and when we want more, when we've released our mid-year economic forecast, we'll come back to the parliament.' He did not want to do that, because he does not want to be held responsible for the impact of his own decisions. He does not want to be held responsible for the decisions he has made.

He wants to increase the debt cap now as part of his cunning plan. He has been going around opening cupboards, he says, and finding spiders. Well, he found a cupboard with a AAA credit rating in it. He found a cupboard where the budget situation had been outlined clearly in the pre-election economic forecast, and he does not want to come clean with the Australian people about the impact of decisions he has taken since the election. So the Treasurer had a choice. He could have done the sensible thing and released MYEFO. He could have done the sensible thing and accepted a $400 billion debt cap, a $100 billion increase—not a small amount of money—that the Labor Party was offering in a spirit of mature negotiation. Oh no, that was not good enough for the Treasurer. First, he stamped his feet and held his breath and said, 'I want half a trillion or nothing.' But to either of those two options, he has gone to chat with the Greens about abolishing the debt cap, about getting rid of any credit card limit at all.

I think the Australian people would be surprised to see the Treasurer 's actions compared to his rhetoric pre-election. When I see the Treasurer, I think about all that rhetoric we heard before the election. We have heard it from the Prime Minister and we have heard it from the Treasurer. We see this pre-election rhetoric completely unmatched by their actions post-election. The Australian people are entitled to be more than disappointed; they are entitled to be angry. They are entitled to be angry with a Treasurer who said, 'If debt is the problem, more debt is not the answer.' They are entitled to be angry with a Treasurer who said, 'It's only the coalition that is going to pay back the debt.' They are entitled to be angry with a Treasurer who said so obviously, 'The age of entitlement is coming to an end because governments are running out of money and debt is now crippling governments.' This is a Treasurer who now wants to abolish the debt cap in coalition with the Greens, whom they railed against before the election, whom they railed against in this House and in the other place and whom they railed against in the media. They told the Australian people that they could never be in a government with the Greens. But here they are entering into a coalition with the Greens to abolish the debt cap. Who would have thought it?

Have we ever before seen a Treasurer, within such a short period of time—and this is the third sitting week of the new government—being such a diminished figure? He has been bullied and shown up by the Minister for Agriculture. He is not being tough enough, not showing guts enough, to stand up for growth and investment against the antigrowth faction in his own government, the agrarian socialist Barnaby Joyce. The Treasurer comes in here and beats his chest and then sits in his office and cowers: 'Oh, I couldn't sign that foreign investment. Barnaby might resign. I couldn't do that. The Deputy Prime Minister might be beastly to me. The Deputy Prime Minister might get cranky with me. So I'm not going to stand up for growth. I'm not going to go out and argue to the Australian people that investment and jobs are good. No, I'm going to cower in my office. But I can't think of an excuse! What excuse can I come up with? Oh, vetoing GrainCorp! I know what I'll do, I'll say we need more foreign investment in Australia, so I'm going to knock this one back. That's how we are going to get more foreign investment, by knocking them back.'

With this Treasurer and this Prime Minister, never has there been such a clear case of big promises and small delivery. They were, as their promises were then, once mighty. They are now, as their performance is, nothing.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is truly unique to come into this chamber and hear the Labor Party complaining about the level of debt. Talk about a reformist party! I found it fascinating when, a couple of hours ago, as I was flicking through the TV channels, I watched the Treasurer outline the poor state of the nation's economy and of the national accounts as a consequence of what was left behind by the Australian Labor Party. At the conclusion of that press conference, I flicked the channel and I happened to see the shadow Treasurer, the member for McMahon, at the National Press Club. What was extraordinary about his performance was one particular line that really caught my interest. He said, 'Labor needs to be in office for a long time to cement our reforms.' He is nodding in furious agreement. They just needed a little bit more time!

This is the Australian Labor Party who inherited $60 billion of assets six years ago, presided over the five largest budget deficits in our nation's history and who, as a consequence of their policies, saw the most rapid deterioration of debt in our nation's history. Then they come into the chamber and say: 'Oh no, you should trust us on debt. We know the best way forward. Don't trust the coalition on debt.' Look at the track record. It was only the coalition that paid off $96 billion worth of debt last time. Why would you trust us? The Labor Party are the people you should trust, according to the member for McMahon. After all, the Labor Party took $60 billion and turned it into over $400 billion worth of debt!

What is also extraordinary is that the shadow Treasurer, the member for McMahon, likes to say repeatedly—and he did just moments ago—how the coalition could have had the $500 billion debt ceiling, if only the coalition had been willing to release MYEFO, as if in some way insinuating that, once again, the coalition could not be trusted. What is fascinating about that is that this is on Labor's own numbers, not coalition numbers. Do not rely on the figures that we put forward if you do not want to. I say to the Australian Labor Party: use your own numbers. Let me educate the shadow Assistant Treasurer as to which numbers. I am talking about the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook forecasts that made it clear that you were going to reach $370 billion worth of debt. And let us not forget the tabled minute from the Australian Office of Financial Management which said that you need a $40 billion to $60 billion buffer. Let me make this easier. I wish I had a big calculator, but I will add it up: $370 billion plus $60 billion is—

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is $430 billion! It had to come from this side though, not from the other side. There you have it. On Labor's own numbers, there is $430 billion worth of debt. And yet the Labor Party say, 'We don't understand why you need to have more than $400 billion.' Well, it is because, on your own numbers, it will be $430 billion. The most concerning aspect of this is that the Australian Labor Party is willing to play havoc with Australia's international reputation. The Australian Labor Party is willing to put Australia's national interest behind political expediency and political opportunism. That is entirely consistent with the approach of the shadow Treasurer and members opposite, because of this key reason: when it comes to making decisions in the national interest, the Labor Party knows full well that we are within a week or so of breaching Australia's current debt ceiling of $300 billion.

So what is Labor's approach? Do they take a mature approach and say, 'Let's look at what needs to be done. We know that it has got to be $430 billion as the peak debt limit that is anticipated on Labor's own numbers'? No, they do not. They say, 'We'll give you $400 billion and then we'll go back to it in due course.' A similar approach was used by the Tea Party in the United States. So we know who they are getting their riding instructions from when it comes to political process; we know the approach the Labor Party likes to take when it comes to trying to work out what they need to do in terms of running this debate. But I have got news for you, Labor Party: that is not how we intend to govern. That is not the approach of the coalition and it is not the way in which we intend to conduct Australia's economic policy. Our focus is on providing economic certainty, and the way we send certainty and security to the financial markets is to make it clear to them that we will deal with an issue comprehensively and we will deal with it once and for all.

It stands in stark contrast to Labor's approach of, 'Let's just kick the can down the road a little bit further. Four hundred billion dollars? What does it matter? Let's just worry about it when we have to come back to it in six or 12 months time.' That is what Labor have said should be the approach. That is not our approach. Our approach is to say that we need the debt ceiling to be at $500 billion. Understandably, Labor again gets confused because they think 'debt ceiling' actually means 'debt target'. Labor thinks that if there is a $500 billion debt ceiling then that means debt is going to $500 billion. Well, I have news for the Australian Labor Party: debt is not going to $500 billion. That is the ceiling, that is the maximum, that is the amount that we do not want to reach, and it stands in stark contrast to Labor's approach. I say to the shadow Treasurer, shadow Assistant Treasurer and shadow Parliamentary Secretary that what they need to realise is that the coalition deal with the issue once and we deal with the issue finally.

The other quite interesting approach Labor have been taking as part of their literal interpretation of the term 'opposition' is that they have decided being in opposition means they must oppose absolutely everything. You can almost see them sitting around the table saying, 'What are some other fascinating opportunities that we can come up with to differentiate ourselves from the government?' 'I know,' the shadow Treasurer would have said, 'let's oppose them on some savings measures to show what a compassionate group the Australian Labor Party is and how rough and tough the coalition is. Let's oppose them on some of these mean, nasty savings measures that the coalition has come up with.' You can almost see them; they would all be nodding in furious agreement. 'And why not start with $2.3 billion of savings in the education sector?' The only problem with that is that they were Labor's savings. They were the savings that the Australian Labor Party came up with. So, when they literally interpret the term 'opposition', what they are actually doing is opposing their own announced savings measures.

The shadow Treasurer stands up and talks about hypocrisy. I have news for you, shadow Treasurer: the greatest and most glaring example of hypocrisy in the parliament today is the fact that you are willing to stand up and oppose your own savings measures. $2.3 billion worth of savings measures were announced by the Australia Labor Party, and now Labor says, 'No, we are opposed to them. We don't support them.' In addition to that, there are some $13.4 billion of savings measures that this government is trying to take to reduce the mountain load of debt that has been left behind by the Australian Labor Party—debt that we know is going to continue to accrue interest, debt that is currently running at $10 billion a year in interest repayments. That is $10 billion that could have been spent on, for example, new schools, new hospitals or new road projects—a whole raft of different approaches—but Labor says, 'No, we are opposed to those savings measures as well.'

The Labor Party want to have their cake and eat it too. They say, 'We want to make sure the debt stays lower,' yet they stand opposed to some $15 billion of savings measures. How does the Labor Party compute that? They oppose $15 billion worth of savings measures, yet claim to be concerned about keeping debt lower!

The simple, inescapable reality of this entire debate around Australia's debt ceiling is this: if you, Labor, were willing to stand up and do the right thing, to put Australia's national economic interests first, to put certainty and stability in the marketplace ahead of your own short-term political opportunism, you know that, based on the figures I outlined before, Labor Party figures, the best thing to do would be to increase Australia's debt ceiling to the $500 billion that was called for by the coalition—not to stand in the way with some silly game of $400 billion claims but to do the right thing by the Australian people and make a decision that, ultimately, is going to make a profound difference by ensuring that we can provide the certainty and stability that this nation so sorely needs after six years of mismanagement and debt-ridden rule by the Australian Labor Party.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, you probably missed it, but I was looking at the backbench over there and I want to commend the member for Moncrieff for the first verbal administration of Mogadon! Look how excited these people are to hear about the government's position and what they want to do on debt! It was a masterful performance! They just keep giving. The other side is a gift that keeps on giving. Remember these great quotes? 'We will be a government of no surprises.' That is what they said—'no surprises'. They say one thing before the election and another thing afterwards.

We had the member for North Sydney over in London, getting his pics standing with Big Ben, talking about the age of entitlement being over. He shakes off the jet lag when he comes back and, then, what does he do? He supports the biggest, newest entitlement scheme, their paid parental leave scheme, handing over three times the amount that pensioners in the electorate I represent get in their pension, giving it to some of the wealthiest people around. That is their paid parental leave scheme. It is one thing before the election and another thing after it. Then he says, 'We won't we bullied on foreign investment.' Remember that one? 'We will not be bullied on foreign investment.' And then he has a face-off with Barnaby, with the member—I've forgotten where he is, he has moved around so often. Which seat is he in now?

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

New England—and you had better remember!

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

New England, okay. So he has a face-off with the member for New England, he blinks and then, suddenly, GrainCorp is approved. What is the new dictum, Member for Riverina? Is it 'Barnaby will decide on the FRB decisions I can't make and on the foreigners who can invest here'? It's Barnaby's way! It's Barnaby's way in terms of investment.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Chifley will refer to members by their seat or their title.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, well, you know the member for New England very well, having chased him off yourself, Deputy Speaker Scott!

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, no. The member for Chifley will refer to members by their correct titles.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that is a very good point. What else do we have? 'We are a government of no surprises.' The Treasurer says, 'We need to have a conversation about Qantas,' so they say to the Treasurer, 'Okay, over to you. What are we talking about?' 'I don't know. You want to talk about it.' 'No, you started the conversation on Qantas.' And then he does not say anything about what he wants to do. Here is the other one. The Treasurer said before the election:

… if debt is the problem, more debt is not the answer.

That is what he said.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's ringing a bell.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ringing a bell, indeed. Thank you, Member for Rankin. And what does the Treasurer propose? An increase from $300 billion to $500 billion, a 67 per cent lift in debt—67 per cent. Weak on entitlement, weak on foreign investment, weak on following through on reform, weak on the issue of debt: thank God he has starch in his shirts, because I do not think he has a spine holding him up! He cannot make a decision, he cannot follow through, on the thought bubble that starts the day and ends on—what? Nothing. He cannot even come through on it.

What we said was quite simple. We said to the government, 'If you want to increase the debt limit, then we'll certainly back the increase to $400 billion, and then you come back and actually fill in the detail if you want to go higher,' which is not unreasonable. Apparently, they will not release the incoming Treasurer's brief. But all we said was, 'Release the MYEFO,' and they will not even do that. And what is their answer on cutting debt? They hand over $9 billion to the RBA, just—bang—like that. They are talking about increasing the debt limit and then they hand over $9 billion to the RBA as a gift. It is no wonder; they are waiting for the dividend stream down the track. That is really why they have done it. Load up the budget deficit now. If they are worried about debt, why are they turning their backs on revenue measures that could have given them $3 billion? They gave a tax cut to the 16,000 wealthiest people in the country. They are worried about debt, and their answer is to come back and suddenly say they need to increase the debt limit. And, when we do not give it to them, what they do? When we will not support them just increasing the limit, what do they do? They go to the economic fringe dwellers, the people that they derided previously, the ones that they hate and they love and they hate and they love. They cannot work out—

Honourable members interjecting—

It is the Greens, not the Nats. That is right; that is the war that keeps on giving in the coalition! (Time expired)

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Chifley should have more respect for the National Party. But let us start with the federal member for McMahon, whose matter of public importance this is today. The member for McMahon, who is also the shadow Treasurer—on his letterhead, he uses the word 'leadership'—just told me that he actually never had the GrainCorp issue across his desk. But I put it to him that he did. I put it to him that he was too cowardly to actually answer it; and, if that is wrong, he will get up and make a personal explanation when I finish. But I doubt it. But he is an absolute amateur when it comes to the lily-livered member for Lilley, who, in his 2012-13 budget speech—

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I am very relaxed about what the honourable member said about me, but he should withdraw the assertion about the member for Lilley.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The parliamentary secretary will withdraw that comment.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. That just proves, though, that—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, the member will—

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw, unreservedly and unequivocally. But that just proves that the GrainCorp issue did come across his desk and that he was too cowardly to deal with it—

Mr Bowen interjecting—

Well, you never approved it, you never did anything with it, and that is just the point. Your side, in government, never did anything with anything, apart from rack up a huge debt. Now, we go to the budget speech by the member for Lilley, when he was Treasurer, in 2012-13. This is from his budget speech on 8 May 2012, and he says:

The four years of surpluses I announce tonight are a powerful endorsement of the strength of our economy, resilience of our people, and success of our policies.

Moving on 12 months, the following year he says:

Speaker, because of our deep commitment to jobs and growth we have taken the responsible course to delay the return to surplus, and due to a savage hit to tax receipts there will be a deficit of $18 billion in 2013-14.

It just kept going on and on, because while there might have been $18 billion earlier this year, it then became more and more and we ended up inheriting $370 billion worth of debt. That is why today we have to increase the debt ceiling—not because we want to, not because the Australian people want us to but because of the abject failure of people on that side. The member for McMahon was responsible in part. I will not say he was entirely responsible, because he got the job of Treasurer only when there was so much backstabbing on the Labor side that he ended up with the job. Nobody else wanted it. Having failed with the boats policy, they gave him a job as Treasurer and said: 'You couldn't do a worse job than the member for Lilley. You've done such a bad job with boats. Try this portfolio,' and he mucked that up, too.

The government is getting on with the business of dealing with the legacy of debt we inherited from Labor. Labor knew that the debt limit would need to be increased again but did not have the courage. Just like the member for McMahon did not have the courage with GrainCorp, they did not have the courage to do so in the lead-up to the election. The member for Lilley said on 3AW on 15 May, when he was still Treasurer, that 'Increasing the debt limit will be a matter for them.' Who was he referring to? He was referring to us, of course. He had already waved the white flag. After the election, Labor squibbed it and focused on what seemed to be their core business. What was the core business of Labor, do you think, in the last parliament? Fighting among themselves, executing prime ministers, squabbling over the scraps of who might be sitting on the front bench. Meanwhile, Australia was going down the gurgler. Meanwhile, our debt was going up and up. Uncertainty for families and for businesses mattered not to Labor. All they were interested in was just seeing who was going to knife whom.

Why is this such a big debt? We can refer to the Little Book of Big Labor Waste. We had immigration, the boats plan, with a $1.2 billion blow-out. I see the member for McMahon looking across wondering what document this is. I will table it, if you like. Building the Education Revolution, $8 billion wasted; political advertising, $100 million; national broadband blow-outs—who knows how much that is going to cost? Computers in school blew out by a massive $1.4 billion; green loans were eventually dumped after three independent reports found extensive mismanagement; the solar homes program, an $850 million blow-out; $54.25 million dollars was wasted on operational expenses in the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute; it just goes on and on. If you like, I will table the document so that the member for McMahon can read it a little later when he gets over his cowardly performance about GrainCorp. The debt ceiling does need to be increased. It is unfortunate that it needs to be increased because of the waste that you blokes racked up. (Time expired)

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian people would be scratching their heads about the behaviour of those opposite when it comes to the debt cap. Wasn't this supposed to be some kind of debt emergency? Weren't they supposed to be against more debt? Didn't the now Treasurer say to the Press Club in May this year that for the good of the country we need to stop increasing debt as quickly as possible? And the year before didn't the Treasurer say that there is no justification for an increase in the credit card limit of the Commonwealth government whilst they are claiming to live within their means? Didn't the now Prime Minister say in 2011, as the shadow Treasurer said, that borrowing extra money was like saying to your bank manager: 'Look mate, I've got my spending under control. Can you extend my credit limit?' Didn't they say that they would not work with the Greens? Didn't they say that the Greens were economic fringe dwellers? Didn't they call year after year, whenever there was a policy change or some kind of development, for the government to release the books to update the Australian people on the nature of the Australian budget? All of those things are ringing a few bells. In the language of social media: WTF! That was then and this is now. The reality of their approach to the economy now is that there is a vast difference—

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The terminology within tweeting those three letters is inappropriate for this parliament and I ask that they be withdrawn.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am unfamiliar with it, but I will take the member for Hasluck's comments as being relevant and I ask the member for rank and to withdraw.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw, Deputy Speaker. The reality of their approach to the economy is that there is a vast difference between what they said before the election and what they are doing now. Now they want to eliminate the debt ceiling on the national credit card, an extraordinary proposition from people who told Australians they wanted less debt and not more. They said less debt, then they said double the debt, and then they said, 'Let her rip.' They said, 'Open for business and open the books,' and now they say, 'Open the floodgates and open the throttle.' From 'Sloppy Joe' to 'Jelly-back Joe,' from Jekyll to Hyde, in record time. They said they would spend less and then the Treasurer gave away $12 billion in two weeks without explanation in the case of the RBA giveaway and without justification when it came to ripping off middle Australia to fund superannuation tax breaks for 16,000 wealthy Australians.

Now they are in bed with the Greens on economic policy, just like they were in bed with the Greens on the Malaysian people swap. And now the debt emergency has become a credibility emergency for a new Treasurer. No wonder the member for New England is regarded as the real Treasurer on that side of the House. The member for North Sydney is unable to utter a word that is not written and authorised by the National Party or funded by Gina Reinhart. The charitable view is that the now Treasurer did not give a moment's thought to any of this before he got the job, that in four years as shadow Treasurer he did not get around to forming a view on any of the important economic and fiscal issues. We saw a bit of evidence of that today as he wandered around whingeing and whining about the national accounts, all of the excuses and political lines that we get from him in the absence of any credible analysis of the national accounts.

That is the charitable view. There is a more sinister interpretation that the Australian people need to be aware of what this is all about. Opening the spending floodgates now, shovelling money to the RBA and the wealthiest in our community, blowing out the deficit is all about one thing and one thing only: constructing a budget emergency of their own, creating an excuse for the swinging axe that will come when the 'Commission of Cuts' reports. It is an axe that will hit Middle Australia hard if their cuts to the schoolkids bonus and low-income super contributions are anything to go by—a preview of the nastiness to come.

This Treasurer comes in here all puffed up, full of self-congratulation, so proud of himself, always going for the cheap laugh over the hard yards. If those opposite think we would give a limitless credit card— (Time expired)

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend the previous speaker on what was a riveting contribution to Hansard! Well done! I was approached earlier on today to speak on this matter of public importance: 'The Government’s plan to allow itself to run up unlimited debt.'

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you want me to read the big words to you?

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're kidding! You talk about letting us run up unlimited debt, but what the House forgets is that there is a bill before the House that would enact the stopping of unlimited debt. It was introduced into the House—

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Half a trillion dollars!

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There you go! Let Hansard show that we just got an interjection from the other side of the House saying that it was for half a trillion dollars. May I inform the interjector that there is an enormous amount of difference between 'unlimited' and half a trillion dollars. How is it that you are struggling with the concept of 'unlimited,' which is open-ended? Let me take you back to the concept of 'unlimited'. Why is the country in such a fiscal mess? We hear comments of such absurdity from the other side, not understanding the concept of unlimited.

Who got left with the mess? Previous speakers on the other side spoke about GrainCorp, Qantas and the recapitalisation of the RBA. We understand what it is like to be on the other side. We were in opposition and we made a point of opposing—

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Everything!

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, not everything. We made a point of opposing the previous government for not keeping their promises. We opposed the then government—

Opposition members interjecting—

Let the Hansard show that comments from the other side came across that we 'opposed everything'. We opposed your broken promises. If your interpretation of everything you did was a broken promise, let the record show that. You made the point—

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have you run out of material?

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I have got much, much more. Member for Throsby, you have now fallen foul on opposing every single thing that we promised. We promised through the campaign that we would get rid of the carbon tax. That is not something that we just pulled out of our back pocket. We said we were going to oppose the carbon tax; you are opposing it. We said we were going to oppose the mining tax; you guys are opposing it. We said we were going to oppose TPVs; they are not going through. You have struggled with the education debate.

But I want to get back to the current debt. You knew that this debt ceiling needed to be shifted. The entire government knew that it needed to be shifted. The evidence of that was in an interview with the previous Treasurer and, by all accounts, a great Treasurer! He was 'Treasurer of the Year,' and he cannot get a start on your frontbench. On Wednesday, 15 May, there was an interview with the then Treasurer, Wayne Swan, member for Lilley, with Neil Mitchell of 3AW in Melbourne. Neil Mitchell very simply asked:

Will whoever wins the next election need to raise the debt level?

That was the question asked. The response from the then Treasurer was:

That will be a matter for them.

The government knew. I have been challenged in my own electorate. I want to get this on the record and I did it the other day on the television. I have been challenged in my electorate on the points made by the other side of the House. We said we wanted to bring down debt. Why is it then that one of our first acts in getting into government was to increase the debt ceiling? The simple fact of the matter is that the ongoing expenses are still yet to hit our MasterCard. If we liken it to a family budget, the expenses that Labor have racked up have still yet to hit. We have sat in this House for no fewer than eight days since the election. It is unthinkable to suggest that the key policy issues that we have brought before this House, which are still waiting to be ratified by the Senate, have had any budgetary impacts. The additional revenue limit is needed to substantiate the extra increase of expenditure that the opposition ran up. It is the opposition's debt, you own it and we will make sure that we pay it back.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a government built on contradictions, wandering around in its own parallel universe. You can see how it actually believes its rhetoric. You can see the contradictions on education. It was for Gonski and then it was against Gonski; it was for going back to the old SES model. And then, by the end of the week, it was back to Gonski. And, on boats, the same thing.

One minute they are voting with the Greens in this House on the Malaysian transfer agreement. We had the Treasurer blubbering away at the dispatch box and, next minute, they are in here holding up pictures of Christine Milne, Leader of the Greens in the other place. On foreign investment, they say they are open for business and then, on their first major test of foreign investment, who gets to make the decision? The member for New England. The most incoherent member of the cabinet gets to make the decision! And people in boardrooms around Australia gasped—you could actually hear the breath intake of corporate Australia. Sydney just about shut down, surprised that jobs and investment in this country could be decided by the member for New England. No-one could quite believe it. And of course we have the same inherent contradiction on debt. They denied the GFC in opposition, but the justification for this debt increase is 'headwinds out of Europe'. That contradiction does not actually makes sense.

When they were in opposition we had a budget emergency—'budget emergency', it sounds very serious—and yet in government suddenly the emergency is not quite so emergent. I do not know what the word is, but it is the opposite to emergency. We had the austerity talk when they were in opposition, but that evaporated as well with this mismatch of policy. We know there are going to be cuts and nasty ones, but you can bet they will not be to the top end of town because they have given them a tax cut. One of their first acts was to give the top end of town a tax cut on their superannuation.

In opposition they decried the Greens. Even when they were voting with the Greens on the Malaysian transfer agreement, you would never have known it for their rhetoric. Yet, at this very moment, there is the Treasurer sandwiched between the member for New England and the member for Melbourne—two ends of a political horseshoe. Fortunately, he is big enough to fill that space, but it is an amazing position for a Treasurer to be in.

They told us before the election that they were going to repay the debt. How many times did we see that in direct mails around the country? 'Repay the debt. Repay the debt. Repay the debt.' If you could get them in a debate, they were not very good at telling you much beyond that. You were very good at saying it; you were not very good at actually having a debate about it.

But now, in the first sittings of this parliament, what do we have? An increase to half a trillion dollars in the debt limit. That is their first ambit claim and they are negotiating it. The member for Melbourne is not here. He is probably in Joe's office having very serious discussions or in Barnaby's office—the member for New England. They are probably talking about jobs and investment—probably not! What they are talking about is getting rid of the debt limit altogether. What we will have under this government is more debt. You can just see it coming. They are already starting to talk about good debt and bad debt. That means their debt will be good debt and our debt will be bad debt. That will be their philosophy. You can see it coming. What this Treasurer is doing, by getting into bed with the member for New England and the member for Melbourne, is jeopardising foreign investment, jeopardising jobs and pushing up our debt. This is a Treasurer that has all the characteristics of Ruth Park's muddle-headed wombat. That is what he is: a muddle-headed wombat, wandering around the place saying one thing and doing another.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think I am offended on behalf of wombats. The tragedy of it all! No longer in government and no longer in their comfort zone of spin, focus groups and fantasy, the opposition have the hide to lecture the government on debt and the problems with the Australian economy. Why do they do it? Because the opposition will do anything and say anything to avoid one stark fact. That is the fact that they are no longer in government. Back in their days of government there was rarely any connection between fact and the Labor-Greens coalition public utterances. They saw themselves as the ringmasters of the 24-hour news cycle. They saw themselves as masters of spin manipulating the sad reality of their ongoing incompetence into a Pollyanna's confection of wishful thinking.

They are the party that promised there would be no carbon tax under a government that they led. They are the party that gave us the pink batts fiasco, GroceryWatch, cash for clunkers—and the list goes on. They are the party that on over 500 occasions promised the Australian people they would deliver a surplus and even printed brochures to say they had done it. They are a party that has thrived on political fantasy for so long that they would not know the truth if they ran into it. They are an opposition playing to their only strength—spin, not facts. They are an opposition that made being loose with the truth an art form. They are an opposition who forget that this is a deficit that they built.

Today's government has work to do, an economy to fix and a nation to build. This is a government with policies to implement. Why? Because that is what the people of Australia decided. Perhaps if the opposition were more interested in our nation's future and less interested in spin, and perhaps if they had been more interested in good government and less interested in media manipulation, they might have read the advice provided to them by their own Treasury. There you can find the facts—the facts of the damage of the runaway train that they called economic management.

This is a serious matter. The coalition inherited the results of Labor's frolic, and this government intends to deal with it in a careful, methodical and responsible way. We simply must have certainty about financing the budget. Good government is not determined by your mastery of the 24-hour news cycle; good government is all about prudent and proper decision making and economic management. This government has a responsibility to the Australian people to get our economy back on track.

The increase of the Commonwealth government debt limit from $300 billion to $500 billion is a critical step in this process. The opposition knew the debt limit would need to be increased again, but they did not have the courage to do it. Instead, the member for Lilley—the world's greatest Treasurer!—shirked his responsibilities and said it would be a matter for them after the 2013 election. They ignored Treasury advice, leaving it for others to clean up. It is not rocket science, just prudent economic management.

The coalition is committed to providing stability and certainty to the markets. Unlike Labor, on this side of the chamber we understand that the debt limit is not a target. In 2008, the Labor-Greens government set the debt ceiling at $75 billion. A few months later, in February 2009, the government increased the debt ceiling to $200 billion. The 2011-12 budget saw an increase to $250 billion. But that was not enough for Labor; they raised it again in 2012-13 to $300 billion. Between 2009 and 2013, in just four years, Labor increased the debt ceiling to 400 per cent of its original value. Labor owns this debt. This government has a responsibility to the Australian people to get our economy back on track.

I make one simple plea to the opposition: as much as you love the 24-hour news cycle, the people are sick of it. The Australian people want governments to get things done, not read about every confected conspiracy that conveniently lodges in the opposition's corporate brain. The people of Australian want the government to govern and that is what we are doing. It is as simple as that.

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

I will remind the House that the topic of today's MPI is the government's plan to allow itself to run up unlimited debt. That is what I intend to speak about. Every day we are reminded by this government that they have been given a mandate by the Australian public to govern on the policies they campaigned for—every day. Yet every day, we are being hit with new policies and positions that directly contradict what they took to the Australian people during the election. In opposition, members opposite insisted that they were on a unity ticket with Labor on education. In opposition, government members opposite insisted that we were in the grip of a budget crisis and needed to reduce our debt. Really? I am not sure what to believe. If that is what the government campaigned on, surely Gonski would be going ahead and we would now be taking action to reduce our debt. But that is not what is happening. Every day this government is changing its story and breaking its promises. This is not the government Australia thought they were getting.

The Treasurer went to the election promising to reduce debt and to implement deep budget cuts. He called it fiscal discipline, if I am not mistaken. But that is not what he is doing now. The government has instead embarked on a spending spree and now wants to allow itself access to unlimited credit. The Liberal Party campaigned against debt before the election yet one of their first actions in this parliament is to request an unprecedented increase to the debt limit of 67 per cent. The coalition can in no way claim a mandate to increase the debt limit by this amount to half-a-trillion dollars.

Make no mistake: the first time that the $500 billion figure was mentioned was when the Treasurer announced it on 22 October, six weeks after the election. The government was not given a mandate to increase the debt limit to half-a-trillion dollars and they certainly were not given a mandate to scrap the limit altogether. And the Treasurer has gone from promising to pay back the debt before the election to wanting to double the debt a couple of weeks ago to now wanting to run up unlimited debt. Today, we are talking about having an unlimited debt limit. This new position on removing the debt limit altogether is truly remarkable.

In this House on 12 March this year, the now Treasurer rose to speak and address the government on debt limits. He said:

The truth is that Labor do not know how to live within their means. They are like someone with a credit card who is out of control.

The thing is that credit cards do have a limit. And for good reason. That is why the debt limit exists and that is why we support the continuation of the limit and an increase in line with any evidence to support it. The Treasurer is now suggesting that we remove the limit altogether and go on a free-for-all. I shudder to think what that means for Australia based on the few weeks of crazy spending that we have already seen.

They have thrown $8.8 billion to the RBA, money that they did not want or need, a move of political means, not economic means. Then there was the $1.2 billion that came from nowhere this week and was thrown at the state governments as hush money. I would like to say that this was to address disadvantage in education, but there are no guarantees about where that money is going to. It is a no-strings handout. That is $10 billion of unbudgeted spending in this first sitting of the 44th parliament. No wonder they want to scrap the limit.

This Liberal government is now saying: 'We're happy to break promises. We don't want controls on our spending. Let's remove the debt limit altogether.'    The Australian public cannot trust this government. We cannot trust anything they said during the election; we cannot trust what they said yesterday; we cannot trust what they say today. Who knows what they will be saying tomorrow? But we do know one thing about what they say: we will not be able to trust it.

The coalition called the Greens 'economic fringe dwellers' during the last parliament but now promises to deal with them on the debt after the election. Labor is not going to support removing the debt limit. We will not support removing parliamentary scrutiny of government debt. Labor's position on debt is clear and it has been consistent. The government needs to be transparent and open its books and produce the evidence required.

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

For the sake of those in the gallery, I had better explain that we are here today talking about debt and deficit because the Labor Party put this on the agenda. It was not our side; it was the Labor Party that put debt and deficit on the agenda this afternoon. What I would love to see—and maybe the member for Chifley could do this for us—is the tabling of the Einsteins on your side who decided in your tactics committee meeting to put this on the agenda for the MPI debate today. They are geniuses! Let us run through a little bit of the history.

When you came into government the budget was in surplus by $20 billion. It is now forecast to be in deficit by $30 billion. Let us have a look at what has happened with net debt. When you came into office, the government was $50 billion in the black. What are we expecting now? Net debt is going to be well and truly over $200 billion. And yet you want to debate debt and deficit in this place this afternoon. What those opposite need to do is go to the Press Club and have a look at the record there of what Brian Loughnane said in his speech after the election about what the causes were for you losing. One of them was debt and deficit. And yet here you are today talking about debt and deficit. I will say one thing: keep it coming; let us have MPIs for the next three years on debt and deficit. Make our day.

We want to clean your mess up. What we are seeing in you not allowing us to raise the debt limit is you making sure that we cannot clean your mess up. It reminds me sometimes of when you go into the city and walk around the park. You see people walk their dogs that poop. We have had five poops in the park—the five biggest budget deficits in Australia's history have just been lobbed in the park. And we want to come along with the poop scoop and clean up your mess, and you are hiding the poop scoop from us; you will not allow us to get to the poop scoop. What is that going to do?

Ultimately, the Australian people are going to say: 'They need more time in opposition to realise the damage they have done.' Give us the poop scoop, please! We want to clean up your mess. And it is an almighty mess—the five biggest budget deficits in Australia's history. As a matter of fact, it is the fastest deterioration of debt in modern history—yet those Einsteins on your tactics committee are saying, 'Let's come in here and do the MPI on debt and deficit.' Bring it on. Come on Ed, don't go. Are you going to get the list of the people who are on the tactics committee? Come on, table it for us. Or are you going away to get your poop scoop? We need the poop scoop. Come on, bring it back to us; we need your poop scoop.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Wannon will desist from that language—and, indeed, withdraw it!

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

What I will do now is—

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, on a point of order: knowing you well, Madam Speaker, I know you have only a limited interest in poop scoops, and I would ask you to ask the member to refer to his remarks through the chair.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And I would ask you not to repeat words that I just said are unparliamentary, so you can withdraw them too.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw, Madam Speaker.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Good. The member for Wannon has the call.

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

I am nearly out of time, so all I will do is point to the member for McMahon, the shadow Treasurer, whose MPI this is. The member for McMahon said that the peak of the Labor Party debt would be nine per cent of GDP. Only two years later it peaked at 22.1 per cent, yet the shadow Treasurer has the gall to come into this place and put this MPI before us today. Debt and deficit is your record. We will clean up your mess and we will get the budget back in surplus. We will bring debt down. You should get out of the way and allow us to do it.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired.