Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I will make only a short contribution to allow others to contribute to this debate on the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2013 and ensure that we have a committee stage so that we can give the government the opportunity to choose a sensible, responsible path or, alternatively, a continuation of the political stunt that they appear to be running now. The chant we heard before the election—and I will not go through it, because I am sure those opposite know the chant very well—included the word 'debt'. I took that chant to mean that they would be responsible economic managers. On day one, on the first sitting day, in the other place they already trashed that record.

What we now have is a bill from those opposite which can only be described as a political stunt. We on this side of the parliament used a proper process to ensure that the finances of this Commonwealth remained sound. What we now have is a bill that has been brought into the chamber by those opposite, who will not allow scrutiny of it; it does not have what would be the backing, the underpinning, of the necessary work. All in this chamber would recall Senator Cormann, when he was in opposition, using the phrase, 'Where is the modelling?' I will not use that phrase—Senator Cormann has a particular knack for using that phrase—but underpinning that is this: if they are going to seek to be responsible economic managers, if the government are going to demonstrate that they want this legislation, that they want a cap of half a trillion dollars on their credit cards, then they should demonstrate with sound reasoning, with sound advice, as to how and why they require it. What we have on offer, of course, is deafening silence. I have not, in the time I have been in this place, heard such a deafening silence from a government that wants half a trillion dollars for a debt cap. It is unimaginable that in my time a government would come into this chamber and demand that without substantiation, but there you have it. I have been wrong before; we have a government that have now done just that.

They want to pay back the debt—that was their chant—but this is not the course that you would expect from the government on their first day in the other place, and now in the Senate on their second day. What you would have expected is a road map, a plan perhaps, about how they are going to do it. They could have used the next budget, or even put out the MYEFO supporting the position for why they need to take this particular action. But what we are now left with is no scrutiny: it is not going to be referred to a committee; it is not going to be referred to areas where we can have a proper examination of this debate; it is not going to have the necessary views of all the parties interested in this particular issue, let alone the stakeholder consultations that should be had.

Some of the overblown claims that have been made by Mr Hockey in the other place have already been exploded. The ABC—for those who do respect the ABC—say 'Joe Hockey's Australia, US debt ceiling comparison overblown'. So it is an overblown argument by those opposite. And it is telling, that particular argument. When you look at FlagPost, which also comment on the US debt ceiling and some historical background links, they make the unambiguous statement:

The debt ceiling is different to the current 'shutdown' of the US Government. The shutdown occurs because the US Congress has not passed legislation authorising key spending, so workers are sent home and programs are halted. The shutdown reflects a significant suspension of Government activities, while the debt ceiling is a limit on US Government borrowing.

The US system is different to our system—they have a vastly different political system—and it is not something that you can make a quick analogy about. You cannot, either in the US or here, make the claim that raising the debt ceiling will cause a shutdown. In the US it does not, and here it does not. Mr Hockey has been exposed as overblown on this claim—completely overblown.

About the claim by Mr Hockey that raising Australia's debt ceiling from $300 billion to $500 billion will prevent a US-style crisis, ABC News says, and I agree, the verdict is that they are fundamentally two different political systems and the comparison simply cannot be drawn. It is an oranges-and-lemons argument by Mr Hockey, quite frankly, when you look at some of the arguments that have been put forward. But I think, in essence, Dr Leigh in the other place hit the nail on the head recently. He quoted Mr Hockey at the National Press Club on 16 May last year, who said:

… 'Labor has now sought increases in the debt limit of the Commonwealth from $75 billion, to $200 billion, to $250 billion and now $300 billion. On each occasion they promise not to exceed their limit. Well, enough is enough. We are going to keep them to their promises.'

What we now have is a circumstance where, in opposition, Mr Hockey wanted to keep us to our promises, but now, in government, he not only abandons his promises in opposition but also wants to raise the debt cap to half a trillion dollars without any substantiation. Quite frankly, it flies in the face of all of his rhetoric in opposition. It is an area where Mr Hockey has been completely dishonest with the Australian people on this issue, both before when in opposition and now when in government. The government sit there, on their hands, not wanting to substantiate, justify or indicate the need for this. The opposition, on the other hand, are taking the responsible course to ensure that the government have the opportunity of managing this issue responsibly.

I think Senator Wong struck a very good chord: this government is now going down the path of opacity. They do not like scrutiny, they do not like transparency, and in fact it almost smacks of the Howard era. During that era they did not like scrutiny, they did not like strong FOI legislation, they did not like the scrutiny that was put on any aspect of government, so they pulled the shutters down. What we are now seeing is the second-rowers from that era doing exactly the same thing again. They are pulling the shutters down to hide the fact that they were second-rowers in the Howard era and they are second-rowers still. They are not taking the course of responsible government.

They are offering a confidential briefing. That might work for national security; it might work for those areas where private briefings are important in foreign affairs matters. It does not cut the mustard for economic credibility for this government to offer private briefings. They should put the information out for public discourse, for public examination, so that if they are right it can be tested. We would all hark back to Senator Cormann's words: 'If you show us the modelling we might then be able to then see what it is that you have got.' But the only explanation for not demonstrating it can be that they do not want it to be seen. They want to keep it secret so that the gig does not get pulled up.

What we have is a government that will continue to play political football rather than take the proper course of action in government. As I said at the beginning, I am not going to take my full time and I will leave the contribution at this point. But I will leave the Senate with a couple of thoughts about this government. If it was serious about this legislation, it would have come to the opposition and had this legislation agreed and passed without the need for this debate. It just underscores the truth that it is a political stunt by the government, and we should have no bar of it.