David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Senator Conroy) to questions without notice asked by Senators Minchin, Coonan and Brandis today relating to the budget.

This is a government that does not care about debt. Eighteen months ago, Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan stood before the Australian people, put their hand over their hearts and said, ‘We are economic conservatives.’ And I think the Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, did the same.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They were loose with the truth!

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They were loose with the truth, and that is becoming readily apparent now. When they were asked by the media, by commentators and by voters ‘What do you mean when you say you are an economic conservative?’ they said, ‘We will deliver budget surpluses’—and the voters believed them and elected them to government. Here we are, 18 months later, and the reality is now exposed. The fact is, as we have seen from last night and from everything that this government has done in the last 18 months, debt is in Labor’s DNA. Every Labor government since at least World War II has left office owing more money than was owed when they came into government.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But this is a record.

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am getting to that. Look at the days of Gough Whitlam as Prime Minister and the debt that was accumulated in a very short period there. It was legendary how quickly he turned things around. Things went ‘straight down the toilet’, so to speak. Yet in 18 months this government have surpassed Gough Whitlam’s record. They are spending 29 per cent of GDP. Debt as a percentage of GDP is at record levels, and it is already much higher than Gough Whitlam’s debt. I take you back once again to before the election. Peter Garrett said before the last election, ‘Just wait until we get elected and then we will change it all.’ I tell you what, in the last 18 months you have changed everything. I saw Senator Conroy standing there saying, ‘We’ll deliver every single one of our election promises,’ yet last night you broke most of them. You have broken them over and over again. From the promise to deliver surpluses through to the promise to deliver broadband by the end of last year—whatever it is, it is all broken.

Let me address one issue on debt. The debt that we are accumulating as a nation, which every Australian man, woman and child will have to repay and pay interest on, is not just a consequence of the global financial crisis. This is demonstrated by the fact that this government have spent $124 billion on new discretionary spending that did not have to be spent. They have made a decision to put on the books an extra $124 billion that did not have to be there. When you are looking at a total net debt of $188 billion, as projected in the current figures, that is roughly two-thirds of the debt that we are expecting to have to pay back for every Australian man, woman and child. Two-thirds of that debt has been accumulated on the national accounts by discretionary spending. So we have $124 billion of new spending—and that is only so far—but very little in the way of tough decisions.

In the lead-up to this budget we heard all sorts of stories about the tough decisions. We have heard the ministers today saying that they are making tough decisions. But where are the tough decisions in this budget? Going out and borrowing more money is not a tough decision; it is the wimp’s way out of this. A tough decision would be to take tough decisions seriously and say: ‘We do have money coming back. Maybe we shouldn’t add all this extra spending that we are doing. Maybe we should look at some of the programs we have instituted that perhaps are not as good as we think they are. Maybe we should not have spent as much on the way through this in the last 12 months on profligate stimulus packages in areas that are not going to provide any lasting economic benefit.’

What will this debt mean for Australians? Does it really matter if the government goes into debt? Senator Conroy said that Standard and Poor’s are saying that we can actually handle the level of debt Australia have gone into, that it is not the end of the world. Maybe as a nation, at this stage, we can meet the interest payments—there is no threat to our ability to repay—but what does it actually mean for Australians? It means $9,000 worth of debt for every Australian man, woman and child.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And interest.

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, interest is a good point. Every year, the interest debt will require the payment of the equivalent of $500 for every man, woman and child. That works out at about $10 billion a year. There is a difference between net interest and total interest payments—and that needs to be on the record. What could you buy for an extra $10 billion a year? How many more schools, teachers, roads, hospitals or health staff could you actually afford if you did not have to pay $10 billion in interest?

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bushby’s contribution just then should remind all of us how isolated, insular and disconnected the coalition is from what is happening out in regional and rural Australia—in the streets and suburbs of our country. Do you not know what is going on out there? Do you not know exactly how much people are bleeding, that they are concerned about their jobs, their incomes, their livelihoods and their standard of living? What do you propose? What does the coalition propose?

We have just heard some diatribe about debt. Let me tell you about what Mr Hockey said this morning on Sunrise. Mr Hockey, at 8.09 this morning, said, ‘Our debt will be smaller.’ I am not sure the coalition are aware of that, that their debt would be smaller than our debt. ‘At least $25 billion smaller.’ Then, as the minders got wind of what Mr Hockey had said, at 8.27, when asked about whether he would have a deficit, the current Leader of the Opposition, Mr Turnbull, said: ‘No, you can’t because you—because I mean you could sit down and you could work out a model but, as we see it, with all these financial models, you know, each assumption becomes fairly subjective.’

They do not know what they stand for. They do not know what they want to do in this current global financial crisis. All they want to do is be seen to be some sort of accountant who adds up and subtracts figures. We are dealing with men, women and families in this country who are in need of assistance from this government and all you would do is sit there and let them burn.

A great article was written by a Labor historian called Robert Murray, who wrote a great book called The split: Australian Labor in the fifties. Mr Murray said that the Depression generation, the parents and grandparents of all of us, said: ‘Why was it that the government did not intervene?’—the government of Joe Lyons and Menzies—with the sorts of great infrastructure projects which we are doing. Why was it that in 1929 to 1931 and in 1940 they could not find the money to do anything about roads, rail, ports, hospitals and schools? Why could they not find that money? But in 1939, the conservative government of that period could find money for guns, tanks, bullets, cannons, aircraft, ships and any other ordnance required for combat—as they should have. That generation asks why that was. Why couldn’t they find the money in 1930 to alleviate the difficulties of the population, but in 1940 they could find that money to stimulate the economy because of a threat? That is what we are doing now. We are finding the money to deal with that economic threat. We are finding it. We are dealing with the issues, unlike yourselves.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cash interjecting—

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You do not know what you stand for, Senator Cash. I have just read out what you stand for. You don’t know. At 8.09 Mr Hockey says something and your current opposition leader says something else 20 minutes later. You don’t know what you stand for. We do know what we stand for. We want to stimulate the economy and we want to create jobs. If you had been overseas lately, as I have with some of my colleagues, including the opposition whip, you would have seen the debilitating effects of what is going on, particularly in the Western world. We will not let that happen here. This government will not stand by and let that Depression generation develop here. We will intervene. We have intervened and we will continue to intervene to make sure Australians are not punished or hurt by the effects of this global economic crisis.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a bizarre contribution. One can only assume that Senator Hutchins was supporting the ultimate socialists—that is, communist Russia when they joined with Nazi Germany to take over the world. As I recall, the unions at that time would not load the armaments onto the wharves because the ultimate socialist nation of Russia did not want them to participate in the war. I can only assume that Senator Hutchins thinks there is something good about rolling over to aggression from socialist and Nazi combinations.

I am distracted. You have to wonder when the two most underperforming ministers in this chamber start referring to each other for support—two ministers who have been humiliated by enormous backdowns from their policy mantra over the last two years. When Senator Conroy, who was humiliated with his backflip on the National Broadband Network, starts referring to Senator Wong, who has been humiliated for her backdown on the emissions trading scheme, you know the Labor Party is in real trouble.

What concerns me, amongst all other major things in this budget that has been brought down by Mr Rudd, is the complete lack of interest the Labor Party has yet again shown for people who live in rural and regional Australia. As my colleagues have pointed out, the only department that has a direct influence in the industries that have been keeping Australian afloat in the last 12 months has been gutted to the extent of almost $1 billion. I challenge the next Labor speaker to point out to me what benefits have gone to rural and regional Australia in this budget—not, I might say, Bruce Highway roadworks, which were in fact flagged and funded by the previous government, but what new initiatives have there been for rural and regional Australia? Sure, Land and Water Australia has been annihilated. That was one organisation that did a lot of good research for rural and regional Australia and the industries that keep it going. The Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation has been absolutely shattered by the cutback in funding. That is nothing compared to what will happen to rural and regional Australia when even the totally backflipped and amended emissions trading scheme hits those parts of Australia that are not in the capital cities.

You have heard a lot of comments about infrastructure spending. It is a well-known fact that the infrastructure spending in last night’s budget was actually less than had been committed in the forward estimates by the previous government for Auslink. So they are spending less than we would have spent, had we still been in government. What they have spent in the way of infrastructure is all for infrastructure in the capital cities. There is nothing for rural and regional Australia. I assume the only one on the other side who has any interest in rural and regional Australia—because he used to drive a truck out there occasionally—is Senator Sterle, who I assume is going to speak next. I do not see anyone else in the chamber. I challenge Senator Sterle to point out to me just where in the budget there is any joy for rural and regional Australia. Where are the infrastructure projects?

On this side of the house there are five or six senators who actually live and work in regional Australia and understand the problems of rural and regional Australia, which nobody on the Labor Party side has any interest in or any concern about. The 31.8 per cent cut in the budget for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is symptomatic of this government’s lack of interest in what happens in the bush. Sure, spend all the money on your city voters; that is what the Labor Party is all about. Put us into debt that is even greater than what Mr Whitlam, Mr Hawke and Mr Keating gave us. This government demonstrates again that you cannot trust Labor with money.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must say that taking note of answers is an interesting part of the Senate procedure, but I have to concur with my colleague Senator Hutchins that, if Senator Bushby’s contribution is a reflection of those opposite, it is sad. I could go into a tirade, I could go into a rant, I could raise my voice and I could throw accusations at Senator Macdonald and Senator ‘Wacka’—sorry, Senator Williams not Senator ‘Wacka’. I apologise for that. I am sorry; I was not being rude—that is his nickname.

Nothing really worries me. The day I start shaking in my boots because Senator Macdonald has thrown a challenge at me is the probably the day it is time for me to pack up, leave and go back to truck driving. While I am on that, if we talk about truck driving, if you want to demean people, Senator Macdonald, go do some homework: I did more kilometres out there in rural Australia than you ever will. If you want the challenge, Senator Macdonald, take it outside and we will have that challenge.

We are in the midst of the greatest global financial crisis since the Great Depression, and it is so totally sad to listen to that side over there and their leadership—and I am talking about their shadow Treasurer, Mr Hockey. I also watched Sunrise this morning, and I thought the Prime Minister was absolutely articulate and straight to the point. He delivered the round-up of last night’s budget in the short time he had absolutely brilliantly. Then I saw Mr Hockey being interviewed by David Koch and he really was like the rabbit in the spotlight. And I have to restate what my colleague Senator Hutchins said. At 8.09 this morning, when Mr Hockey was asked what would he do, he said the coalition’s deficit would be smaller. He probably blurted that out about three times, until Mr Koch actually said, ‘Well, how much?’ and Mr Hockey came out with a figure of $25 billion. I heard that. It is there on the internet; you can see it. What are we talking about here? The day after budget day, 18 minutes later, the leader, Mr Turnbull, came out and gave another rant that was completely at odds with Mr Hockey.

Let us get back to the more important things. They are a rabble over that side. But it is sad for working Australians to think: if the coalition still had their hand on the till, what would they do? That is the challenge that should be answered. What would you lot over there do? Sit it on your hands? Not worry about jobs? How many jobs would have gone by now? This is the scary part. Because you are still in relevance deprivation syndrome. Work Choices killed whatever goodwill you had with the Australian people. Out it went. You know that. All your internal polling showed that. You paid heaps and heaps of dollars to find out what went wrong. We will tell you what was going wrong: since you got the Senate, you got greedy. We told you for three years what Work Choices would do. You took the Australian people as fools. There was a previous Liberal leader who lost his seat because of the same miscalculated stupidity. History does repeat itself.

What would you do? Where would you have invested, and would you have invested? What would you have cut? What departments would have been slashed? How many jobs would have been slashed? How many jobs would not have been created? These are the questions being put to that side of the parliament every day. I watch the news like you all do on the other side. We get our news clippings. I have not seen one intelligent answer yet. That is what I said very clearly. It is sad because that is the best that that side of politics can come up with: ramblings from a leader, not even a coherent line, 18 or 19 minutes after the shadow treasurer bumbled his way through a TV interview out the front of this great building this morning. You cannot even get your story right because you do not know, you do not have answers.

This is a nation-building budget. Can members of the previous government puts their hand on their heart and tell us what great nation-building projects they undertook in their 12 years? I can think of one. There was a railway line from Adelaide to Darwin. Being a freight man, there is room for a rail, there is room for road, there is room for air transport. This is an island and we have great distances, and transport is an imperative. But that railway line has been a disaster; it has lost money every year. What else did that side of parliament do in the Howard era, in those 12 years? What nation-building projects did they undertake? (Time expired)

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 15 September last year I made my first speech to the Senate. In that speech I drew an analogy of running the family farm and running our nation. I said:

The family farm cannot carry too much debt: otherwise, when the tough times strike, the farm will be in financial trouble. So too with our nation. If governments build debt, they are mortgaging our children’s future away. It pleases me that the previous government paid off our huge debt. This is something that as a nation we can be proud of. It is surely the envy of many.

Look at what is happening today with the mismanagement of finance, the blatant abuse of borrowing that this government has now undertaken. We are looking at a debt by 2011-12 of some $220 billion. They have already admitted that the budget will not go into balance or into the black by even the smallest amount until 2015-16. So we are looking at a debt of some $300 billion that the federal government will owe, and the reason it will go that high is that from 2011-12 they have forecast economic growth to be a massive 4.5 per cent, and to continue the following year. In their dreams, I say, to think that in 2011 and 2012 we are going to have 4.5 per cent growth continuing and that that will perhaps bring in extra taxes for the government. They will run us to a $300 billion debt. We are already looking at $220 billion. With the money they will put into the National Broadband Network, if they do not get private investment especially, there is $43 billion committed. They want a guarantee of another $26 billion for the so-called Ruddbank.

Let us just look at $300 billion worth of debt. We know one thing is for sure: money is just like any other commodity or service. When demand exceeds supply, the price rises. What they are doing is contributing to higher interest rates in the future. That is exactly what is going to happen. So if we have got a $300 million debt in the year 2015, at 6.5 per cent you are looking at $20 billion a year just to pay the interest bill—$20 billion until you pay one nurse in an aged-care facility anywhere in Australia, until you carry out one small obligation of the federal government’s responsibility. It is $20 billion just in the interest. I say: how are we ever going to pay it back? When I made my maiden speech in this parliament last September, it was pleasing that this nation was debt-free. And to think that in the matter of four or five years we are going to be drowning in debt of some $300 billion. As I said, this is mortgaging our children’s future away.

But this is what you expect. When we look across to the other side of the chamber, of the 32 Labor senators 26 come from the union movement. They slotted their way into here by being active in their unions. What is their business experience? Here they are running the biggest business in the nation today, and most of them have probably never run a business. So what hope would they ever have of actually controlling and managing the finances of this nation?

This is an absolute disgrace, to put us into this much debt. They are skiting and gloating about the infrastructure. What is the big rail infrastructure for New South Wales, that proud state I represent that has a government hell-bent on putting it down the tube? We have got $91 million for the West Metro line in Sydney. There is virtually nothing for inland New South Wales. Anywhere west of the divide there are no projects of substance in roads or rail. What have they done for water? Surely if we are to get out of this debt and pay the interest we need industry and exports to do that, and the agricultural industry has taken the biggest hit in this budget, abolishing Land and Water Australia to actually plan, prepare and conserve our natural resources, to go on with research and development in the agricultural industry. That is after Prime Minister Rudd commended the Chinese government for their stimulus package and the way they are focused on their primary industries. Here he is doing exactly the opposite.

It is with deep regret that I see that the financial mess this mob are putting this nation into is just going to ensure tough times for our children’s future, and that is frightening.

Question agreed to.