Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I would make a few comments in response to the minister's non-answer to my question, where he is not confirming by how much the coalition government is worse in the bottom line since they came to government. We know, for example, that there is the $8 billion grant to the Reserve Bank which will probably—although he will not confirm it—hit this year's deficit and blow out this year's deficit. We know also that revenue measure changes will hit the budget negatively by about $3 billion. That is some of what we know.

We also know that they are now going to spend more in some areas to deal with their political problems—political problems in schools and political problems in the regional grants area. So there are additional spending decisions. This government has worsened the budget bottom line and is refusing to fess up to it. That is the reality. And if they are going to offset all of that new spending, well, the minister should stand up and say that.

The Labor government did offset new spending, and many of the savings measures that we used to offset that spending those opposite opposed. As yet, I have not heard the Treasurer, the Assistant Treasurer or the finance minister be absolutely clear that in MYEFO they will offset all new spending. Because if you are not offsetting new spending you are adding to debt. That is the only way you can finance it. The reality is that this government is intent first on breaking their pledge to the Australian people that they would reduce debt and deficit. They are not the government they said they would be. They said they would reduce debt and they said, over and over again, that the answer to debt is not more debt. And now they come in here and demand more debt, and they want to demand more debt without even telling Australians what they want to spend it on.

We know from what the minister has said in here today, we know from what the Treasurer has said, we know from what Mr Briggs has said and from what Senator Milne has said about what she has been told—or what she has said publicly—that this government wants to spend more money on infrastructure. Well, if you are going to borrow to fund infrastructure you are going into more debt. And if you campaigned against more debt it is incumbent upon you to tell Australians what you are going to use the money for. If you are going to fund more infrastructure through more Commonwealth debt, more public debt, you should come in here and say that. But you do not want to say that: you want to have a debt debate where you do not actually tell people what you are spending it on.

The phrase 'budget emergency' was used in the minister's speech, and I would say this: there is not a budget emergency, but the coalition will try and create one. If there were a budget emergency there is no way that this government could even talk about borrowing money for infrastructure. If there were a budget emergency there is no way that this government could even talk about guarantees for the private sector. The very fact that they can do that demonstrates that there is no budget emergency. It is the strength of Australia's public finances which enable them to even contemplate more debt or public guarantees. If there were a budget emergency you could not. That is the reality, and Senator Sinodinos knows that.

The facts are these: that you do always need to seek to improve the structural position of the budget. You do, which is why we made some difficult decisions. And I recall Joe Hockey doing another one of his hairy chested routines. When we sought to tighten the means test on family tax benefits to create a structural save over time, what did he say? He called it 'class warfare'. Very quietly, magically, he decided to support it later—but the first day out: this was bad, this was class warfare. And who can forget, when we put out our position on the baby bonus, the person who is now the Treasurer of Australia likening it to the one-child policy in China? That was the standard of the debate when it came to some of the structural savings measures that we put in place. And when it came to DisabilityCare or the Better Schools Plan, we laid out a 10-year funding plan, many of the savings of which were opposed by the then opposition. So what we have is a coalition that said one thing to Australians when they were in opposition about how they would be and now, in government, they say something completely different.

There is not a budget emergency, but the coalition want to create the impression of one. Why do they want to do that? It is all about politics. It is all about trying to set up the rationale, the excuse, for the cuts that are to come. You know that there is no way that the Australian people will accept some of the cuts that you are proposing to health and to education. Watch the Prime Minister walk away from that election commitment. His ministers will not even back it in in the chamber in question time now—when they are asked, 'Will there be cuts to health and education?' they duck and weave. You know you have to walk away from that election commitment. That is why ministers in this chamber will not back it in. The only rationale you have, the only justification, the only excuse is you need to create a budget emergency. You need to do what Jeff Kennett did, what Campbell Newman did, what Liberal governments have as tried and true practice: you get into government and you say: 'Oh, no, it's much worse than we thought! Oh, dear, oops-a-daisy, we're now going to have to do all the things we gave you a commitment we wouldn't do!' That is what is being set up here; that is what this debate on debt is a precursor to. It is a debate about a government that is refusing to come clean with Australians about what its real plans are.

I have one other question to the minister, and that is about how you are going to present MYEFO and how you are going to present the budget. It has been longstanding practice that budget aggregates are presented in both the underlying cash balance and the fiscal balance, both accrual and cash accounting. The importance of this, obviously, is that people do not just pick and choose which aggregate suits them. Can the minister confirm that the government intends to present both the mid-year economic update and the budget in the same form, using the same preferred budget accounting methods, including both the underlying cash balance and the fiscal balance for both the budget updates?