Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Conroy. I refer the minister to the Financial Review this morning, which reported the following:

Commonwealth Securities economist Craig James cast doubt on the government’s rhetoric by saying that the budget surplus was in such good shape that losing $6.1 billion in revenue over four years would have little impact on the wider economy.

In light of Mr James’s remarks, I ask the minister how the government can seriously claim that there is a major macroeconomic difference between a surplus of $21.5 billion and a surplus of $20 billion. How on earth can a reduction in the surplus from $21.5 billion to $20 billion possibly be described as ‘vandalising the surplus’?