Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President, and we are seeing here that very debate. It is not revenue write-downs that account for the Australian government being in deficit year after year after year, and assertions to the contrary do not make that proposition true. It is because of policy decisions of this government. It is because of spending decisions by this government.

As if it is not bad enough that this government have failed to live up to the promise that they presented leading into the 2007 election, to be good and conservative economic managers, and as if it is not bad enough that each and every budget forecast for deficit has been well and truly exceeded at the time of the final budget outcome, the government have embarked on a new path of fiscal recklessness. That comes in the form of the new $120 billion budget black hole. The genesis of that is a series of unfunded, grandiose commitments, some of them worthy in their aspiration and some of them not.

That which is worthy in its aspiration is the National Disability Insurance Scheme, a scheme—according to Productivity Commission figuring as amended by the Australian Government Actuary—which would cost in a full year about $7½ billion to $8 billion a year. The reason for that figure is it is simply a product of the unmet need for Australians with disability who need aids and equipment, who need supported accommodation and who need respite. That is a worthy aim. But, in the case of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the government have only allocated over the forward estimates $1 billion of the $3.9 billion that the Productivity Commission said was necessary for that first phase. So it has been massively underfunded and the government have given no indication as to how a full national rollout of the NDIS would be funded.

Then we have the dental scheme which Minister Plibersek announced the other week and, depending on who you listen to, it is either funded or underfunded. Ms Plibersek said, when asked how it would be funded, that it was all new money and that decisions would have to be taken as to how to fund that. So she said it was all new money but the Prime Minister, on the other hand, said, 'No, no, no, no, it's not all new money but this is essentially a savings measure.' When you have a Prime Minister and a substantive minister on a multibillion dollar announcement being unable to agree whether something is a savings measure or requires new money, you know that there is absolutely no fiscal rigour left in the outfit.

We then have Gonski. There are some elements of Gonski which are fine and worthy in their aspiration but it is a pipedream, with not a dollar put towards it. We are seeing the emergence under this government of a pattern where a grand announcement is made. In the case of the NDIS, you may have a little bit of money put towards it but there is none in the case of Gonski. You may have a little bit of detail provided—as is the case with the NDIS or none, as in the case of Gonski—just enough to give the illusion of activity and just enough to give the illusion of substance. You will then have the Prime Minister picking fights with the states, demanding things of them through the airwaves—things which are news to them. Then, when the states say, 'Look, we'd like to have a chat about this as this is meant to be a nation where cooperative federalism is the order of the day; could you give us a little bit of detail?' the Prime Minister then seeks to excoriate the states—well, certain states, Liberal states—for being against proper support for people with disability or for being against every kid in Australia having a decent education. We have these fabricated confected fights to convey the illusion that only the Labor Party cares about people with disability or that only the Labor Party cares about quality education.

The final element of this new pattern that we see is that the government will seek to introduce a token piece of legislation. I think we are going to see by the end of this year some legislation with the brand of Gonski. I suspect all that legislation will do will be to essentially say that it is a good thing that kids get a good education. I think that is all it will do, I have got to say. I would suspect, although we have not seen it, that the legislation that the government puts forward for the NDIS may technically formally establish a national disability insurance agency, but we will not have details of eligibility criteria, we will not have details of scheme design, we will not have details of how the scheme will be funded and we will not have a commitment to a full national rollout by 2018-19. What we are seeing is an attempt to deceive the public. We are seeing a systematic, deliberate attempt to deceive the public; that these are sorts of announcements—Gonski, dental and NDIS—constitute a comprehensive policy by this government which will be legislated, funded and introduced. It is nothing of the sort. There are two possible explanations for this scenario. One is that the government have been complete frauds, that they have no intention of introducing the Gonski arrangements, no intention of properly implementing an NDIS and no intention of doing what they want to do on dental—disagree with it though we do; they just want to provide enough evidence of activity to convince people that they are serious.

The other explanation for the situation is that the government really want to do these three things but they are just so absolutely and hopelessly incompetent that they cannot bring forward detail, they cannot bring forward implementation plans and they cannot find the money. They are the two explanations—that they are serious and genuine, but they are also genuinely hopeless; or they are deliberately and systematically deceiving the Australian public. I would be interested if you could hazard a third explanation, Mr Acting Deputy President Furner. But they are the two explanations before us.

The cumulative effect is $120 billion of unfunded commitments. And you can throw into that the amount of money which is required to support the situation with asylum seekers. I think the government are actually pursuing a con, that they are gearing up for opposition, that they have no intention of finding the money for these programs and that they have no intention of actually delivering them. That would be appalling, that would be deceitful and that should be condemned. I hope that the government prove me wrong. I would love that. I would love to see the National Disability Insurance Scheme, but I seriously doubt the government's bona fides.