Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today relating to the 2013-14 Budget.

Senator Wong was asked to answer a number of questions today relating principally to the promises made in last year's budget with respect to things like the delivery of a surplus. Senator Abetz quoted directly from the budget speech given last year by the Treasurer in relation to the absolutely 'rock solid' commitment made by the government at that time that a surplus would be delivered in the present financial year. This was indeed part of a rollout of four years of budget surpluses, stretching as far as the eye could see. Minister Wong, the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, was asked simply to confirm that those budget surpluses promised in the budget would still be government policy. Senator Wong made every effort she could to avoid answering that question. She made a vague allusion to governments having to respond to economic circumstances but did not illustrate for the benefit of the Senate what those circumstances might be.

I think we can safely assume that Senator Wong was not standing by the commitment made by the Treasurer in last year's budget. Nor should she, because it is already patently clear that this government has no intention of standing by those promises. They are promises that they have repeated from time to time—indeed, in the case of the commitment to produce a surplus. They are promises made some 500 times in the last 18 months or so by the Treasurer alone and countless tens of thousands of times by other Labor members, senators and representatives across the nation.

This comes in light of the commitment made by Kevin Rudd, the former Prime Minister, in March 2008, where he said:

We will honour all of our pre-election commitments. Every one of them, every one of them.

Before that, Ms Gillard, who was then a shadow minister, said in May 2005:

The Labor Party is the party of truth telling. When we go out into the electorate and make promises, do you know what we would do in government: we would keep them. When we say them, we mean them.

Well, if a week is a long time in politics, eight years or so is an eternity.

So Minister Wong says that economic circumstances have somehow affected the outlook for this government. Something has changed to cause the government not to be able to sit by the commitment it made last year with respect to a budget surplus. Can the minister tell us which of the other promises Labor has made in the last few years are also now to be sacrificed because of economic circumstances?

When the Prime Minister said, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead,' was that a promise she was entitled to break because of economic circumstances, or was it other reasons that led to that breach of faith with the Australian people? When the government promised that the Commonwealth would take over public hospitals if the states did not act by the middle of 2009, was that a promise broken by virtue of economic circumstances? The promise that there would be no reckless spending, that they would make major infrastructure decisions underpinned by cost-benefit analyses—was that a promise broken by virtue of economic circumstances? The promises that there would be no new taxes, that there would be no cutbacks in IVF treatment and that there would be 64 GP superclinics—were they all broken by virtue of economic circumstances? The 12 new Defence family healthcare clinics—was that promise broken for that reason?

The government was going to get tough on people-smuggling. Well, from what Senator Cash has had to say, far from it. Was that also to do with economic circumstances? The promise that there would be no changes to the private health insurance rebate—was that caused by changed economic circumstances? What happened to the Department of Homeland Security? Do you remember that promise? Is that still coming, or has that gone—economic circumstances?

They said there would be no change to the baby bonus and there would be 260 childcare centres to end the double drop-off. What happened to them? I think we got about 10 before that promise petered out. They promised a trade training centre in every Australian secondary school. What happened to that—economic circumstances? We were promised that no trade union official or ex-trade union official would be appointed to Fair Work Australia. What happened to that promise? Gone. A promise to consult stakeholders on problem gambling reforms—gone. A promise to increase defence spending by three per cent in real terms—gone. A promise to cut red tape—gone. Tax relief, tax cuts based on the carbon tax— (Time expired)