Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Hansard source

I will correct that and refer to Wayne Swan as the Treasurer, Mr Deputy President. So we have had this litany of garrulous assertions from both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. I understand that the government as a whole—and Senator Wong has obviously made her contribution. I understand that on some 142 occasions she promised that a surplus would be delivered in 2012-13. We have heard today that, across government, 650 promises, the same promise, were made. Absolutely certain that this would be delivered, the entire government has come behind this promise.

The Prime Minister has promised this on 165 occasions since becoming the Prime Minister on 24 June. 'Failure is not an option' was the catchcry. It is probably a little like 'You won't have a carbon tax under a government I lead'. Something that is said with the sort of gravitas that the Australian people should believe. She followed up by guaranteeing that. 'Guarantee' is a word that people associate with something that is not going to be wishy-washy. This was a core and fundamental promise. The Treasurer then went on to promise it on another 366 occasions. On 366 occasions the Treasurer stood up and said that he would deliver it 'come hell or high water'—again using the sort of vernacular that is woven around something that is absolutely core and something that Australians can trust. It is the sort of wording they can put their trust in.

The Prime Minister said, 'You can't run this country if you can't manage its budget.' That makes sense. If you cannot manage a budget you cannot run the country, and we would agree with the Prime Minister on that. I am sure a lot of other Australians thought that was very sensible. The Prime Minister then went on to say: 'We've saved jobs, we've stayed out of recession and'—prophetically—'we are back in surplus.' 'We are back in surplus!' Not something that has actually been forecast but we are actually back in surplus. Many Australians would have thought: 'Well, I haven't been following politics but that's a relief. That is a relief. I do know that the Prime Minister does bang on a bit about the cost of living, interest rates and all those things that an unbalanced budget can provide, so I am probably feeling a bit relieved.'

That was to the McKell Institute on 4 July, and we all know now that that was complete rubbish. Why? Quite sensibly it is because it will help with relieving cost-of-living pressures. This is the rationale. Wayne Swan said, 'Coming back to surplus is about making sure we help those people sitting around the kitchen table figuring out how to make ends meet.' In that regard, he said:

We'll be back in the black by 2012-13, on time, as promised. The alternative - meandering back to surplus - would compound the pressures in our economy and push up the cost of living for pensioners and working people.

He went on to say, 'It's important we bring the budget back to the black in 2013 because we don't want to exacerbate price pressures in the economy during the period.' Those are matters that were continued by the Prime Minister, who said it was important for families and that 'It's the best thing we can do for families under cost-of-living pressures not add to inflation pressures and ensure that in this budget we won't.'

Of course people were quite relieved about this. In my view, this is clearly an acknowledgement that their decision to abandon the policy of delivering a surplus will lead to additional inflationary pressures, will lead to additional increases in the cost of living and the pain for every single Australian. Everybody understands that the pain in the wallet at the moment is the toughest pain. If the Australian people could not trust the Prime Minister on the carbon tax and the surplus guarantee, how can they now be asked to believe her when she says, 'We care about any element of the cost-of-living pressures on families,' or in fact believe any promise she now makes on the eve of this new election?