Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for COAG) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to all questions without notice asked today.

Let me start at the end and perhaps move backwards. As I said in my final supplementary question to the minister, the original promise of this government in relation to the National Rental Affordability Scheme made by then housing minister Tanya Plibersek in a press release on 5 December 2008 was that 50,000 new rental properties would be built across Australia by 2012. You really need to have a calendar with you to actually appreciate the extraordinary nature of these figures.

In the current performance summary, the government's commitment is to 25,302 dwellings by April 2013; so already half of the original commitment that was promised by 2012 in 2008. The minister advised us in his response today that the 2014 target was 35,000 dwellings under the National Rental Affordability Scheme. But the reality is that at current rates of construction, which see 9,289 dwellings built and tenanted as at September 2012, it would take the construction of over 2,000 houses per month to meet the target in the performance summary—not per year, per month. And this government says that they are bringing affordable housing onto the market in some sort of much vaunted, holier-than-thou way because they are a Labor government and that is what they do.

What it seems to me that they do is to break promises. It was pretty clear in 2008: Minister Plibersek's commitment was to 50,000 National Rental Affordability Scheme houses across Australia by 2012. So we find ourselves here in September 2012 looking at less than 10,000 dwellings. And so as the costs of this government's budget blow out everywhere else across the country, we are faced again with them not explaining how they are going to fill this black hole—this $120 billion black hole in their budget. Not one answer today actually responded to where those gaping holes will be filled. Not one answer! Not from Minister Wong, not from Minister Evans and not from any of the other ministers who had a role in today's question time. Most certainly not from Minister Carr, who has not gone any way whatsoever towards acknowledging the challenge of funding for the Gonski recommendations in education but who nevertheless can see fit to rail against state governments, which they are supposedly engaged in cooperative federalism with!

It is actually beyond a joke; it is actually verging on farcical. It does not matter if you talk to Frontier Economics, it does not matter if you read the Australian Financial Review and it does not matter if you look at the government's own figures: they will actually need to find $120 billion. That is about $20,000 for the average four-person family by 2020 to pay for their spending promises.

'Promises', though: that is the word one would be using loosely if one had any acquaintance with the housing portfolio, as I have. We have a government which has bet the house on historically high commodity prices continuing into the future, and the reality is that that will not be what happens. Look at the expectations which have been raised in so many sectors of the community and the promises that have been given. We had about 10 days in the last fortnight where if you combined the dental care scheme, worth $4 billion, and the Gonski recommendations, worth about $5 billion a year, and you added to that the unfunded National Disability Insurance Scheme as it currently stands, we had about $20 billion worth of promises just wandering around in the ether. But that is okay, because the implementation dates are—what?—2020! How many of us are still going to be here? Some of us, hopefully, but 2020! How stupid does the government think that the Australian public are? They are over vacuous promises and they are over being told that 50,000 dwellings would be built by 2012 when we cannot even crack 10,000.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When you talk of so-called 'black holes', you need look no further than the $70 billion of unfunded promises of those opposite. This Labor government has been well prepared to honour its charter of budget honesty, and the Labor Party, as that government, is honouring that charter.

Let us take a look at the facts, which are that government spending under this government is projected to fall to just 23.5 per cent of GDP in 2012-13 and remain there across into the forward estimates. This would be the longest sustained run of payments below 24 per cent of GDP since the early 1980s. That is the kind of thing that those opposite should have been doing when they were in government, when there was room in the economy during the last mining boom to put that money away. But, sadly, I think those opposite squandered much of the last mining boom, and that is leaving the tough decisions for today. But we are getting on with the job of making those tough decisions. We have standards, and this Australian community expects those standards to be met—standards that are really a lot higher than accepting, as the minister highlighted today, a catering company's costings on Nauru or, for that matter, the costings done during the last budget, which did not meet audit standards despite the fact that shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey repeatedly claimed that those dodgy costings were in fact an audit.

So let us take a look at the facts about some of those things that are being promulgated by those opposite and in the media—things like saying that our dental care is uncosted. They have been saying things like, 'It's $4 billion over two years.' It is $4 billion over six years, and it also replaces a different scheme, so it is simply not new expenditure being added to the books. So those opposite cannot continue just to make things up as they have done this question time about the fiscal responsibility of this government. They have no idea where their figures are coming from and no basis for such absurd figures, but what has been well accepted is the $70 billion black hole of those opposite. That is the real question that this chamber and the Australian people need to deal with—the fact that those opposite have simply made up their allegations about the state of the budget.

But what I know is that what this government has done is that, while we were managing the global financial crisis, we still got on with the job of important social reforms in this country like the biggest increase in the pension in its 100-year history, something that the opposition did not deliver and could not deliver even at the height of the last mining boom. So you did not put the money away and you did not give it to the people that needed it. As I say, it is all about priorities, and those opposite do not have a decent set of priorities to put forward to the Australian people.

We will continue to take a robust and solid approach to our budget. You will see from Treasury at each budget update that we have costed and laid out figures there to be judged. So it is laughable for those opposite to be hanging the whole of their question time discussion around this debate, because you do not have a leg to stand on. What you are putting forward is simply not credible. On the other hand, we know that Joe Hockey announced his $70 billion budget crater on breakfast television, not in audited reports or in budget figures. His so-called auditors were found to be in breach of professional standards, and he still refuses to explain how he would fund any policies, except for the explanation that the company tax rate would indeed be jacked up. So I think that this question time the coalition have squandered their questions merely because they continue to go backwards.

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

I refer to an answer from Senator Wong to Senator Cormann today in relation to investments. Investment about this $120 billion black hole is very important, and we are learning a lot about investments today. In fact, the second piece of legislation in general business this morning was about ethical investments and was brought forward by the Greens, as we are talking about investments and how we are going to invest that Future Fund put away by the Howard government under that great Treasurer Peter Costello for retirement funds. It is quite amazing with these ethical investments. What is proposed—and perhaps some of this black hole filling may be used in the government's budget—is to invest in the potential effects of peace and stability. That is the proposal that has been brought in this morning. I refer to our investments and the $120 billion black hole.

It is amazing that Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon has investments in a company called ERA, Energy Resources of Australia, a great company.

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

What? A uranium company?

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

Yes, the fourth largest producer of uranium in the world.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Really?

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

Truly. That is what the statement of registered interests says. I do not know if the government invests the Future Fund in that. I do not know what the returns are; I think they are about $1.30 a share. But we have a Greens senator, and we may need to follow her advice, Senator Wong, with those potential investments to try and plug that $120 billion black hole. It might be a good investment for the Future Fund to help that black hole. Energy Resources of Australia Ltd—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. I was not asked anything in question time—given what is before the chair—that is at all relevant to ethical investment. The senator does have opportunities if he wants to give this speech. There are plenty of opportunities, as the senator knows, to make these sorts of contributions. He is entitled to make them if he wishes to—that is a matter for him. I understand that we have journalists here and he wants to make a point now, but there are times in the Senate program when he can—

Senator Abetz interjecting—

I am just making the point that what is before the Senate is a motion to take note of answers in question time. This has nothing to do with anything that was asked or answered in question time, and there are plenty of opportunities at which he can make such a contribution.

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, on the same point of order: fancy this minister, who has never answered a question and has never been relevant to the question asked of her, taking this point of order!

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, that is really not a point of order. That is a comment.

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

It is her point of order I am talking on, Madam Acting Deputy President, and I would say Senator Williams is directly on the point of the investment question that was asked of this minister. The fact that she did not answer it does not mean it was not asked.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, there was no question on investment.

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

You can't have two goes on the same point of order!

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Williams, this is a session in which we take note of the answers given at question time, so I am going to remind you to direct your remarks to the questions that were given at question time.

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

I could not agree with you more. We are taking notice of all the questions today, and there were questions on the $120 billion black hole that Senator Wong, I am sure, agrees with. She referred to investments when she answered a question—or made out to answer the question—of my colleague Senator Cormann. I am saying about investments, in plugging that black hole, and there is a lot of money there to be invested in the Future Fund that was put there by the Howard government. I am saying the places you could invest that to get a better return might be companies like Energy Resources of Australia, a uranium-producing company that must be so good since Senator Rhiannon from the Greens actually invested in that company.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order. This is not relevant to the debate, and you are just trying to blacken the name of Senator Rhiannon. No wonder we have so many Nats in here today: it's so they can all see you make a fool of yourself!

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, you will understand from the rulings of the President when Senator Conroy keeps talking about Mr Turnbull's investment and the President never takes any of that point of order raised. Senator Williams is quite within his right to continue the way he is.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, I have given my response, and that is that, Senator Williams, I am going to ask you to keep your comments directly relevant to the answers that were provided in question time today.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I invite you to take that ruling to the President for consideration. The successive rulings of the Deputy President in relation to taking note of answers is the acceptance that it is a wide, broad-ranging debate, especially in circumstances like the debate today, where it is in relation to every single question asked by the opposition—which, of course, included one question that actually named Senator Lee Rhiannon as well.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Senator Rhiannon's name was mentioned today, but it was not in the context of ERA. I have said time and time again and will repeat if you like: Senator Williams, your comments need to be related to the questions that were asked today and the answers that were given today. Otherwise, there are other times in the Senate where you can provide a response and a speech along the lines you are suggesting today. I ask you in the 2½ minutes that are remaining to be mindful of the questions that were asked and the answers that were given today. That is what you are taking note of.

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

I want to bring a point about this black hole today. One of the things we have seen from this government is that, because of this sovereign risk, we are not now seeing the Olympic Dam uranium mine proceed in South Australia. If that mine had proceeded, people would be employed, they would pay tax and that would help build some of the $120 billion hole that this government is facing. But the Australian Greens would shut down South Australia's signature economic project, the Olympic Dam uranium mine, if given the chance. That is the point I am making about where the investment is going.

Senator Rhiannon, as I have said, invests in a uranium-producing company; however, the Greens want to shut down a project in South Australia that could help fill the budget black hole that this government faces.

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

I can't believe it!

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

I will take your interjection. There will be many people who cannot believe this, but that is what has happened here. It has been revealed—

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

That can't be on her register of interests.

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

It is on her register of interests. There it is if you want to look at it. The point I make is that, when it comes to filling this black hole, we know what this government is made up of. It is made up of the Greens, the Australian Labor Party—sorry, Senator Madigan; I almost said the Labor Party—and a couple of Independents. We are now getting closed down projects like Olympic Dam in South Australia, which will no doubt have a distinct effect on the budget revenues for the government in export revenue and profits, where they pay company tax. And part of that government alliance—the Greens—would shut down Olympic Dam tomorrow if it got going. Sadly, it has not got going. It has been put on ice.

So it is quite ironic that we have people wanting to shut down Olympic Dam, it is not kicking off because of lack of faith in this government and Greens senators actually have shares in companies that produce uranium despite their hatred for uranium. The irony is simply amazing.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hypocrisy.

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

I will take your interjection. Yesterday we heard 'hypocrisy' from a male Greens senator in reference to Senator Sinodinos. He called him a hypocrite—not a very nice thing to say. Of course, I would not say that this is hypocrisy—well, I suppose it is, yes. (Time expired)

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand the time to do that will be at the end of taking note, which will be fairly soon.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a bit rich, I think, for the opposition senators to start talking about budget black holes on the government's side which are clearly hypothetical and speculative, not confirmed or based on fact, when they have very much a confirmed $70 billion black hole. They stand for a $70 billion black hole, cuts to services and cuts to jobs. This was confirmed by Joe Hockey and Andrew Robb. It is a bit rich of them to come in here and start talking about black holes and also for Senator Williams to go on some tangent when he should know very clearly by now the standing orders in this place. If not, I suggest to him, as someone who is still relatively new to this place, to read his Odgers', which he would have received, as we all did when we started as new senators in this place, so as to understand the standing orders during taking note of answers. We have to be relevant to the questions from question time which we are taking note of. Even I know that much.

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. On your ruling, this senator is now talking about Senator Williams and something he may or may not have done. That was not the subject of any of the questions at question time today. On your ruling, you will tell this senator to move on to the debate before the chamber.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not a point of order, Senator Macdonald. Senator Singh is well aware of what this half an hour is for during the Senate time, and she is taking note of the answers to questions.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That Senator Williams's contribution to take note focused in part on this new rhetoric coming from senators opposite about a black hole is incredibly rich at a time when they have confirmed a $70 billion black hole on their side.—

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And growing.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And growing indeed. We all know exactly what that means. I think Senator Payne, who talked about the importance of housing and the growth in housing, needs to have a little reflection on that and what it would mean in terms of a $70 billion black hole and also on the fact of what occurred in housing under the federal Liberal government. The federal Liberal Party ripped $3.1 billion out of the housing budget. It actually voted against the building of 20,000 new homes the last time it had the chance to support affordable housing. I am sure that Senator Payne is a champion of housing. I am sure that she has some concern about the need for social housing, as we very much do on this side. It is why we have implemented a number of policies in relation to social housing. If that is her personal concern, she needs to understand that she is in the wrong party, because the party she is in, as I said, ripped $3.1 billion out of social housing and voted down the creation of 20,000 new homes the last time it had the chance to support social housing. In contrast, our record when it comes to the housing portfolio is a very proud one. It is a proud record of helping to deliver affordable housing to Australian families.

At the broad level, our economic management has delivered a budget into surplus, kept unemployment low, helped to contain inflation and enabled the RBA to keep interest rates low. The current standard variable interest rate for the major banks is at 6.82 per cent—well below what it was when the Liberals left office. Of course, that means more money in the pockets of Australian families. Families are now saving around $4,000 a year on a $300,000 home loan compared to November 2007. Since coming to office, the government has also directly contributed to the construction of one in every 20 new homes through programs like the $6 billion investment in social housing and the $4.5 billion investment in the National Rental Affordability Scheme—a scheme that has really benefited a number of low-income Tasmanians in my home state. In fact, in the long-term, the government has committed to providing 50,000 new more affordable rental homes through the NRAS by 30 June 2016.

So our record is very strong when it comes to social housing, because that is what Labor governments do. They support those in need. They support those low-income Australians who need support to get into the housing market and who need support to get into an affordable rental market. We support Australians who need support through all kinds of social housing; hence, the breadth of our housing portfolio—something that was completely destroyed during the time the Liberal Party were in office, and it is something that Senator Payne needs to reflect upon.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Fair Competition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the answers to these questions today we have seen another example of Labor's lack of credibility on fiscal matters being reflected in their lack of charity and in their lack of honesty. The simple point is that no-one believes this government on fiscal matters and, in particular, no-one believes it when it attacks the previous government, because the fiscal scoreboard says it all. When this government came to office, $96 billion in debt had been paid off—and more than $80 billion of it had been run up under the previous Labor government. There was $70 billion in the Future Fund—money that has been put aside for the public sector superannuation liabilities run up under governments over 30 years. And there was a surplus of more than $20 million that Labor could bank in their first year. All of this was the result of the policies of the previous government.

The point to be made about Labor's lack of charity is that the previous government and the previous Prime Minister and Treasurer, John Howard and Peter Costello, always gave credit to the Hawke government for some of its measures in liberalising Australia's economy. They always gave it credit for cutting tariffs and deregulating the financial markets, and they always pointed out that those measures were supported by the coalition and by the Liberal Party at the time, particularly under John Howard's leadership. But we never get such charity, we never get such intellectual honesty, from the Labor Party, because in a desperate desire to somehow construct some credibility they must tear down the record of others.

But the fiscal scoreboard is honest. The fiscal scoreboard actually outlines the numbers this government inherited and it tells us where they have taken us now. I am not surprised, after having spent a few years here, that the Labor Party oppose measures to balance the budget. They particularly seem to be focused at the moment on opposing those measures at the state level, where state coalition governments have come to office in order to clean up the messes left by Labor governments. The reason Labor must oppose measures to balance budgets is that I do not think they ever do it. The record of Labor at a federal level and at a state level is one of debt, one of deficit, one of deferring hard times to future generations and one of leaving a mess for others to clean up.

I have seen the confected outrage from the other side, talking about how there are public sector jobs going in certain states. But why do I see no outrage about the 50 jobs that Labor is trying to abolish at the moment—the 50 jobs for the people who were going to work on the Abel Tasmanor about the people who are losing their jobs because of the carbon tax? We never, ever hear Labor being upset about those jobs. We only hear the ALP being upset about public sector jobs. I have to ask myself: is it because the people working on the Abel Tasman are not union members? Is it because they are not organised and cannot march down a street in colourful T-shirts—they do not present a pretty picture for television? But we never, ever hear the outrage over people like that, in this case long-term unemployed people, losing their jobs.

We only hear confected outrage from the Labor Party about public servants losing their jobs.

This government has no credibility when it comes to financial matters. It has been using the global financial crisis that was severe but did not hit Australia as hard as it did other places. There were multiple reasons it did not hit Australia as hard as other places. There was confidence in our fiscal situation, a situation this government inherited; there were solid regulations of banks and financial institutions that meant they did not get themselves into trouble as those in Europe and North America did; and there was demand for our resources, so our terms of trade were going through. But this government still uses the global financial crisis as a veil behind which to hide it its irresponsibility. This government wasted billions on a crisis that did not hit our shores as hard. The number of jobs that Labor claimed they were going to create were suddenly jobs that had been saved, but no evidence whatsoever has ever been produced to demonstrate that.

The second $42 billion stimulus package stands particularly condemned for being some of the greatest waste that this government and country have ever seen. We saw waste in pink batts and school halls and we saw the misdirection of funds, with dead people receiving $900 cheques from the government. The government compounded the problem by not listening and not withdrawing the stimulus earlier when it became obvious to everyone that it was not needed in our economy and was overheating it. This is to say nothing about the fact that there is still a great question about whether such stimulus packages even work. Whether or not we can stimulate an economy by removing or borrowing money and simply spraying it around is still a question that has not been established. The evidence of what is happening around the rest of the world today says that. This is a government whose history and record demonstrate fiscal incompetence. And taxes will eventually go up under this government; it is just a question of when.

Question agreed to.