Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate notes the Gillard Government’s $120 billion budget black hole.

As I rise to my feet, it occurs to me that I have spent my entire professional life either talking about Labor debt and deficit or helping to repay it. Essentially, my entire professional life has been spent cleaning up after the Australian Labor Party. I was working with the Greiner government, which inherited from Labor debt and deficit, and I should note in passing that the opposition leader for that entire period was none other than current Senator Bob Carr, who opposed each and every measure put forward to repay debt and get the budget back into balance. I worked for the Kennett government, which inherited debt and deficit, and the job was, again, to seek to repay that debt and get the budget back into balance—again without any assistance at any time from the Australian Labor Party. So, in 1996, when I found myself working for the then Treasurer, Peter Costello, it was, as Yogi Berra would say, 'Déjà vu all over again'. There was a $96 billion debt and a budget which was $12 billion in deficit, and we set about repaying the debt. Again, it was done without any assistance from the Australian Labor Party. In fact, the Labor Party opposed each and every measure put forward to get the budget back into surplus. It took us the best part of a decade to completely eliminate that $96 billion of Labor debt—the best part of a decade. It is easy to rack up these bills; it is much harder to pay them down. So successful were we in doing so and establishing what was widely accepted as a new and better fiscal paradigm that then opposition leader Mr Rudd was at pains to ape the Howard government—to present himself as a slightly younger, slightly funkier version of John Howard. He was essentially putting forward the proposition to the Australian people that it was safe to vote for the Australian Labor Party because it would be a status quo situation—that there was essentially no difference. Mr Rudd went to the extent of appearing in those television ads, which I am sure we all remember, where he put his hand on his heart and said, 'I'm often accused of being an economic conservative. It's a badge I wear with pride.' I see Senator Wong smiling.

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

No, it was your tone!

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are with me and that is the main thing, Senator Wong. But it now seems so farcical to remember him saying, 'I'm often accused of being an economic conservative. It's a badge I wear with pride.'

Senator Wong interjecting—

See, she likes it. The very sad thing is that too many people believed Mr Rudd. Too many people believed that the Australian Labor Party had learnt the lessons of the past—that it was a bipartisan commitment to balanced budgets, to living within your means, to economic conservatism. That is what the Australian public believed. Mr Rudd was guilty of misleading and deceptive conduct. He was elected in effect on the back of a lie. We know Ms Gillard was elected on the back of a lie—that she would not introduce a carbon tax—but the lie that Mr Rudd put forward was no less significant: that he would be an economic conservative, that he would preside over balanced budgets, that he would not rack up massive debt as previous Labor governments had.

So the election came and went, Mr Rudd became Prime Minister and Mr Swan became Treasurer. They were talking a good game, you have got to say. In his very first budget Mr Swan said, 'We're budgeting for a surplus of $21.7 billion in 2008-09, 1.8 per cent of GDP, the largest budget surplus as a share of GDP in nearly a decade.' No. It did not come to pass. It reminds us, as if we needed reminding, that what is in a budget speech, what is in a budget paper when it forecasts a surplus, when it forecasts a lessening of debt, or when it forecasts a smaller budget deficit than the year before, is a forecast—it is nothing more than that.

The global financial crisis came along. It is such an unlucky government, this one: if it is not one thing, it is another! So we had the global financial crisis. If you believe the Australian Labor Party it was the first time in human history that there had ever been economic uncertainty; it was the first time in human history that a government had ever faced significant external shocks and it was of such magnitude that it would not matter what happened—

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

Oh, come on. You'd be laughed out of town if you went to Washington and said that. Go to Washington and say that—go on.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am noting, in effect, the tone and the language that the government used at the time—that this was something that was completely unprecedented, that they had no option but to go into deficit, that they had no option but to spend massively, to waste massively.

But I do contrast that with the Asian financial crisis. We are much more enmeshed in the Asian region than we are enmeshed with Europe or the United States. In the Asian financial crisis—our region, where we are—our major trading partners were in recession. Despite that and without massive fiscal stimulus, without massive waste, we still continued to grow. It is not automatic that recessions elsewhere lead to recession in your own country.

The global financial crisis, yes, was a real event, but Europe and the United States were the genesis and the epicentre of that. It was not automatic that we would go into recession. What saved us from recession was not the economic stimulus. It was the fact that we have a floating exchange rate; it was the fact that we had strong demand from China; it was the fact that we had the world's best prudential regulatory arrangements, courtesy of Mr Costello; it was the fact that the Reserve Bank cut official interest rates. It was the combination of those factors which led to Australia coming through the global financial crisis in good condition. It was not because of this massive fiscal stimulus. It is important to have a look at the contrast between how we fared during the Asian financial crisis and how he fared during the global financial crisis and what the Howard government did at the time of the Asian financial crisis and what the Rudd government did at the time of the global financial crisis.

But it seems that this government just cannot take a break; luck just never goes their way! Even if you accept the thesis of the other side in relation to the global financial crisis and the budgetary situation in the year or two after that, it in no way explains the fiscal situation since then. We have heard time and again those opposite say that the reason that the budget is in deficit year after year after year is because of revenue write-downs. There have been revenue write-downs—I acknowledge that—but, if you look at the budget papers year by year by year under this government, the overwhelming reason that the budget is in deficit year after year after year is not revenue write-downs; it is because of policy decisions. What 'policy decisions' means is spending decisions by the government. That is the overwhelming reason that the budget is in deficit year after year after year. It is because of spending decisions.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Excuse me, senators will not debate across the chamber. Senator Fifield has the call.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President, and we are seeing here that very debate. It is not revenue write-downs that account for the Australian government being in deficit year after year after year, and assertions to the contrary do not make that proposition true. It is because of policy decisions of this government. It is because of spending decisions by this government.

As if it is not bad enough that this government have failed to live up to the promise that they presented leading into the 2007 election, to be good and conservative economic managers, and as if it is not bad enough that each and every budget forecast for deficit has been well and truly exceeded at the time of the final budget outcome, the government have embarked on a new path of fiscal recklessness. That comes in the form of the new $120 billion budget black hole. The genesis of that is a series of unfunded, grandiose commitments, some of them worthy in their aspiration and some of them not.

That which is worthy in its aspiration is the National Disability Insurance Scheme, a scheme—according to Productivity Commission figuring as amended by the Australian Government Actuary—which would cost in a full year about $7½ billion to $8 billion a year. The reason for that figure is it is simply a product of the unmet need for Australians with disability who need aids and equipment, who need supported accommodation and who need respite. That is a worthy aim. But, in the case of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the government have only allocated over the forward estimates $1 billion of the $3.9 billion that the Productivity Commission said was necessary for that first phase. So it has been massively underfunded and the government have given no indication as to how a full national rollout of the NDIS would be funded.

Then we have the dental scheme which Minister Plibersek announced the other week and, depending on who you listen to, it is either funded or underfunded. Ms Plibersek said, when asked how it would be funded, that it was all new money and that decisions would have to be taken as to how to fund that. So she said it was all new money but the Prime Minister, on the other hand, said, 'No, no, no, no, it's not all new money but this is essentially a savings measure.' When you have a Prime Minister and a substantive minister on a multibillion dollar announcement being unable to agree whether something is a savings measure or requires new money, you know that there is absolutely no fiscal rigour left in the outfit.

We then have Gonski. There are some elements of Gonski which are fine and worthy in their aspiration but it is a pipedream, with not a dollar put towards it. We are seeing the emergence under this government of a pattern where a grand announcement is made. In the case of the NDIS, you may have a little bit of money put towards it but there is none in the case of Gonski. You may have a little bit of detail provided—as is the case with the NDIS or none, as in the case of Gonski—just enough to give the illusion of activity and just enough to give the illusion of substance. You will then have the Prime Minister picking fights with the states, demanding things of them through the airwaves—things which are news to them. Then, when the states say, 'Look, we'd like to have a chat about this as this is meant to be a nation where cooperative federalism is the order of the day; could you give us a little bit of detail?' the Prime Minister then seeks to excoriate the states—well, certain states, Liberal states—for being against proper support for people with disability or for being against every kid in Australia having a decent education. We have these fabricated confected fights to convey the illusion that only the Labor Party cares about people with disability or that only the Labor Party cares about quality education.

The final element of this new pattern that we see is that the government will seek to introduce a token piece of legislation. I think we are going to see by the end of this year some legislation with the brand of Gonski. I suspect all that legislation will do will be to essentially say that it is a good thing that kids get a good education. I think that is all it will do, I have got to say. I would suspect, although we have not seen it, that the legislation that the government puts forward for the NDIS may technically formally establish a national disability insurance agency, but we will not have details of eligibility criteria, we will not have details of scheme design, we will not have details of how the scheme will be funded and we will not have a commitment to a full national rollout by 2018-19. What we are seeing is an attempt to deceive the public. We are seeing a systematic, deliberate attempt to deceive the public; that these are sorts of announcements—Gonski, dental and NDIS—constitute a comprehensive policy by this government which will be legislated, funded and introduced. It is nothing of the sort. There are two possible explanations for this scenario. One is that the government have been complete frauds, that they have no intention of introducing the Gonski arrangements, no intention of properly implementing an NDIS and no intention of doing what they want to do on dental—disagree with it though we do; they just want to provide enough evidence of activity to convince people that they are serious.

The other explanation for the situation is that the government really want to do these three things but they are just so absolutely and hopelessly incompetent that they cannot bring forward detail, they cannot bring forward implementation plans and they cannot find the money. They are the two explanations—that they are serious and genuine, but they are also genuinely hopeless; or they are deliberately and systematically deceiving the Australian public. I would be interested if you could hazard a third explanation, Mr Acting Deputy President Furner. But they are the two explanations before us.

The cumulative effect is $120 billion of unfunded commitments. And you can throw into that the amount of money which is required to support the situation with asylum seekers. I think the government are actually pursuing a con, that they are gearing up for opposition, that they have no intention of finding the money for these programs and that they have no intention of actually delivering them. That would be appalling, that would be deceitful and that should be condemned. I hope that the government prove me wrong. I would love that. I would love to see the National Disability Insurance Scheme, but I seriously doubt the government's bona fides.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am a bit worried looking across at the opposition because they were all wearing their R U OK? badges earlier in the day but now they seem to have disappeared. It would be a real worry to me if we are to fall into a process of excoriation this afternoon. We need to have a debate around the issues and we are more than keen to have the debate, but I think we should be looking to see that everybody in the chamber are feeling well, positive and moving well into the debate. Senator Fifield, I am worried that the badge has gone. I hope that does not mean that the spirit is lacking on this day.

However, in question time this afternoon we heard the preliminary part of this debate with the series of questions across the chamber to Senator Wong. The opposition started with quite clear assertions about and confirmation of the figures that prove the great blow-out in the budget. Yet again, we have the litany from those opposite—if you say something often enough and loud enough, it automatically becomes truthful. We know where the figures come from that the opposition are using. They come from the Australian Financial Review. With great deference to the Australian Financial Review, a newspaper that is read vigorously by people on a weekly basis to find out what is happening in the economy, it seems that, yet again, the opposition's work is being done through other sources, the media and the AFR's report on the budget. That is worrying because in this place we have processes which work effectively.

As you know, Mr Acting Deputy President, because you sometimes sit with me on the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee during estimates, we look at the Treasury figures and the budget process, and line by line the Senate is able to examine exactly what the determinations are across all expenditure in the budget. It is clear through that process that you can identify in the budget exactly what is happening with the forward spending and what the methodologies are and have been for many, many years. There is no new way of calculating the budget. We have not created a new budget process. We have not created a new Treasury. We have not created a new department of finance. Those processes and systems have existed. We work within that infrastructure and we continue to do so.

I looked at the AFR'sfigures—which I actually found in the media release from the opposition that claims the attribution to black hole, to which they love to refer—and it was clearly listed on the basis of an eight-year forward plan for the budget. I immediately turned to my little book on how the budget process operates to see what we do during Senate estimates. I found that we look at the forward budget and at the way calculations are made, and I picked up almost immediately that the forward budget does not cover an eight-year period. The data and the arguments put forward by the opposition—and I know they will continue to use them next week, because why start with a new line when you already have a good one—were the inflated figures around an eight-year outlying process. That is a technique. It is a proposition into the future but it is not an examination of budget figures; it is a guesstimate. Anyone can have an argument using guesstimates.

The comments made by Senator Fifield we have heard many times before. I knew the way his comments were going to flow and I knew what was going to come next. He waxes lyrical that we must be very unlucky, that we have all sorts of things happening to us and that we hide behind what is happening in our budget figures. It is as though the government have not gone through the process of putting out a budget every year and reviewing the figures midterm—all of which is publicly available—as well as sitting through three weeks of intensive Senate estimates. There is a view in the rhetoric of the opposition that we have not known, or not noticed, that we have run budget deficits over the first years of our government. We have known that. We have planned it. The reasons that those budget deficits have occurred have been put out into the public arena, as well as what we are planning to do as a government to respond. We have been told by the opposition that our government's plan to have a budget surplus going into the next financial year is somehow an unworthy affirmation, that it is something that might or might not happen. What we have said as a government is that we will bring in a surplus, and we are working through the process to ensure that happens. Every time there is an examination of our figures, that is brought into an account. But that is not good enough; somehow it has to be some kind of manipulation or conspiracy or hiding that the government is doing. That is not true. The job of government is to put forward our figures, to justify those figures and to put evidence as to what we are going to do, how we have done it and what factors are impacting on our budget.

I heard Senator Fifield today draw a comparison between the Asian financial crisis and the global financial crisis. That argument has been made. At the time of the Asian financial crisis I was in this place, and at no time did the then opposition say that there was no such thing as an Asian financial crisis. There was debate about whether the methodologies and responses being put forward by Costello at that time were appropriate, but at no time was there any suggestion by the opposition that it was somehow a made-up exercise and that Australia would be completely immune from everything that was going on. In contrast, from the time that the global financial crisis was identified, to the horror of the world's economies, there has been a view by those now on the opposition benches that it was not having any impact on Australia, that we would be able to sail through without impact and that any good thing that came out was somehow a legacy of the good financial management of the previous government. The view was that there was nothing untoward, nothing major and nothing troubling that would cause the government to make the really strong financial decisions, publicise them and explain why they were being done, which resulted in the economic stimulus processes we put in place, particularly in the first three years of our government.

They were decisions that have been respected and held up by international economists as not just appropriate action but action which could be held up to show the rest of the world's economies a way to make the best response to a significant threat to our financial security. But, no, again that was not good enough for the opposition, who said the government was lucky or unlucky, it fell into decisions, it did not know what it was doing. Many leading economists, including at that stage, I have to say, economists in the Australian Financial Review, said that the Australian economy had pulled itself through the global financial crisis in a very effective way. There has been pain, and we continue to see pain from businesses that were caught up in that process, particularly those involved in international markets. But the economic decisions that were made by this Labor government, using figures prepared by Treasury and the department of finance that are public, have protected to a large extent the integrity of our economy. I think that should be acknowledged. It has been acknowledged by most organisations, most governments and most economic theorists, with the major exception being those in the opposition at the moment. I do not consider it is a matter of luck. I believe it was a series of strategic decisions based on economic theory that led us to the position we are in today.

There seems to be a viral process happening around the country where Liberal-National governments have been elected by the population—and that is the joy of our democratic process: we do not always enjoy the results but we enjoy that democratic process that we have. The process I am referring to where you get into government and you have an independent review, which is run of course by people that you know and appoint, that brings out the astounding finding that there are budget issues and problems from the outgoing government. What a surprise—that has never happened before in history! Nonetheless, we have seen it happen now in Victoria, in New South Wales and, most recently, in Queensland—my own state and yours, Mr Acting Deputy President Furner. What we have is a battle of the black holes, an argument over whose black hole is bigger than whose. What we have now in Queensland is an independent review which has had a responsive independent review. It points out that the figures used in the first independent review, which was chaired by Mr Peter Costello, whilst following economic methodology, were blown out and exaggerated to respond to the worst possible scenario that could occur. I do not think it took into account nuclear destruction, but it almost did.

Various figures have been thrown around in the Queensland parliament and in this place which claim to be the deficit that the Queensland government is facing. Subsequent inquiries and opinions have been sought which say that those figures are not absolutely accurate, that there are other ways to calculate the figures and that that could make a difference. It is much the same as the basis of the debate we have had in this place, where the opposition are claiming significant blow-outs, that the deficit is going to be $120 billion. Again, this has been done using data and a process which the government does not agree with. What a surprise!

As I said earlier, what we have is a battle where if you say something and then I say it is not right, and yell louder and louder, somehow at the end we are going to reach some kind of agreement. It never happens. It does not happen in any form of debate and it particularly does not happen in financial debates. What we have seen is a clear disagreement from the government, from the Treasury and from the Treasurer with the premise that was put forward in the $120 billion figure.

What we do have is a process where the government releases its figures every month, and the scrutiny takes place through the Senate estimates process and in the midyear figures. We now all know that the building is being done in the government for the next year's budget. It is an important budget. Our government has said that it is going to have a surplus in the next financial year budget. That is not some kind of wishy-washy goal; that is the government's statement. What will happen is all the figures will lead into that—taking into account what Senator Fifield seems to put as some unusual process of policy decision—which is the basis of what we do as a government: develop a policy, develop the financial figures around that and then crunch the figures into a budget which will fund that policy which has been put out. Governments have to make decisions about what they can afford to do and not do. That seems to me to be standard financial management. There is nothing unusual about that. There is no conspiracy about that as is being put forward by people in the opposition. That is how policy is developed and policy is funded through budgets.

Senator Fifield made statements about a number of key areas: the NDIS, the dental scheme and other key policy areas such as the Gonski review into education. One of the things that disappointed me most when I was looking at the Australian Financial Review figures was the way in which in a couple of these key areas there was no differentiation about what was going to be a state funding responsibility and what was going to be a federal funding responsibility. That to me would be quite a basic arrangement because the government has said consistently that, particularly around the areas of education and health and most particularly around the area of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, there is an expectation from this government that they are going to be shared responsibilities between state and federal governments, as indeed always; this is not a new policy. In the areas of disability, health and education, which are three of the very large policy areas about which the opposition has been speaking and to which this government has a commitment, there has always been shared responsibility between the states and the federal government. It is not always an easy relationship. In fact, I am not sure it has ever been an easy relationship and we have lots of great quotes from the past about the terms used by various premiers and various federal leaders to refer to each other in that process. Rather than an attack on state governments by the federal government in developing the budget parameters around which the NDIS scheme would be introduced, there was a clear discussion about what amount, what percentages, what areas the states would be responsible for and what areas the federal government would be responsible for.

At this stage we are not into the core aspects of the NDIS. There has been a policy decision, an agreement to move forward and an agreement to have a series of trials to set the basis on which further action would be taken. All this is public knowledge. Just by saying that you do not agree with it does not mean that it is not true and is not publicly acknowledged. It would seem to me that there should be a clear understanding about who is responsible for what and what expectation there is for budget agreement. However, in the Australian Financial Review figures—the eight-year-into-the-future figures, which have never been a known economic model in Australia—it seems that all the financial responsibility on those figures falls back to the federal government. That is just not true.

It is a standard process for governments to consult on what their policies are going to be. It is the expectation that governments will develop budgets around that and then put that out to the community and show them what has happened. Then it is the responsibility of the parliament to review those budgets to ensure that the money is being appropriately spent. That is standard process. So any view that there is something particularly wrong or different about the way this government is working is just not true. It may suit a political purpose and it does. Throwing figures around this place, throwing figures around the community and throwing figures around the media do not constitute economic argument. They may make really good one-liners and I reckon if you just keep saying billions and trillions and squillions often enough and have a whole lot of zeros in the figures and then accuse them of being wrong then that may give you a couple of moments in the sun or a couple of moments of newsprint. That does not constitute economic argument. And it certainly does not mean that the current government is not effectively planning and working through a budget process.

It seems to me that if the best way to argue is just to consistently say that the others are wrong and not put forward your own case, it will not get you very far. I think it is a sad point that when we get into 'whose black hole is bigger than the other's', we throw up figures about other figures that are incorrect and fall into the same trap. I do not think that is an effective way of moving forward either. I can remember sitting across on the other side of this chamber and being constantly asked by people on this side of the chamber, 'Give us your policies and give us your budget figures. Don't talk to us until you put your own budgets up and show us what you are going to do.' So, with respect, you can make these statements about what this government is doing with our budget; that is what you do. It would be useful if you would justify them. It would be useful if you did not rely on other people to do the calculations, particularly those in the media. It would be useful if when you are talking about policy areas such as the NDIS, the dental scheme and education into the future—those things which are so important to all of us—and as you are making allegations even to the extent of excoriating people on this side of the chamber, you could provide the details of the budgets in opposition that you are wanting to bring in to ensure that once again that battle over the black hole size could be justified and we could see exactly where people are moving into the future—with budgets across the board.

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

Before I make a contribution to this debate, I would just like to acknowledge some of my Western Australian National Party colleagues up in the gallery here with us today. It is good to see them over here with us on the other side. Welcome to the Senate.

Mr Acting Deputy President, I have to say that Senator Moore is one of those on the other side for whom I have the greatest respect—no doubt about that at all. But I have to say that when Senator Moore was speaking I just tuned out. I think that is like what the Australian people are now doing en masse—they are just tuning out when the government are talking about money, when they are talking about the budget or when they are talking about the economy, because they know that this government simply cannot manage money. And add to that the fact that they simply do not believe anything that the government says anymore. The government cannot manage money, and everybody knows that. We see the same cycle from decades past: Labor gets in, runs up a huge debt, they eventually lose an election, the coalition comes back in and we are left with a giant debt that we have to fix, and we have to put the country's economy back to rights again.

That is not just a fanciful story. When you go back to history it has happened time and time again. It is no wonder, Senator Williams, that the Australian people simply do not believe a word the government says, not a word—

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

They've given up!

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

They have given up—thank you, Senator Williams. They have just given up. I apologise to Senator Moore for tuning out. Usually, I listen with great intent to Senator Moore's contribution because she makes very sensible and balanced contributions. But on this particular issue, no go. Unfortunately, as I said, I did tune out, as many of the people across Australia have done and continue to do.

Senator Fifield, in his opening statement, referred to 1996 and the $96 billion of debt that the incoming coalition government had to deal with. I can remember that very clearly; not that I was in this place at the time, but I was very involved in the National Party. I think I was about 16—sorry, Hansard, that was a joke! But I remember it very clearly and I remember hearing from John Anderson about the ERC and what the coalition had to do to get the economy back to rights. And it was really, really tough.

It was $96 billion and it took us about 10 years, give or take, to pay it off. And in that as well there was—let us not go there!—the sale of Telstra of around $30 billion. At the moment we are now looking at this $120 billion black hole from Labor. They glibly try to make it sound as if it is no real problem at all—it is no bother; it is all fine, everything is on track and the economy is going well. You cannot escape the fact that there is a $120 billion black hole under this Labor government's management of the economy.

Again, I refer to my colleague over there, Senator Williams, who has an amazing grasp of economic issues, I must say.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Amazing! It is truly amazing!

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

I mean that most sincerely! He has a tremendous grasp of economic issues, and I know that he would back me up with everything I am saying. We are left with the situation now where I think that there was around $70 billion in net Commonwealth assets when the coalition left office in 2007. Since then, Labor has delivered the four largest budget deficits in Australia's history and the list just goes on and on.

In 2012-13—and I am going to refer to my notes because I want to get this absolutely right—the government will be spending around $100 billion a year more than in the last Howard-Costello budget. Interest payments on Labor's debt are running at $22 million a day which, interestingly, colleagues, equates to about $300,000 in the 20 minutes that I am going to be speaking. These are facts that the government cannot get away from. Interest payments on Labor's debts since 1 July 2009 are $15 billion; $15 billion—that was a 'b', not an 'm'—'b' for billion. It is interesting, colleagues, isn't it? Labor often talks about budget surpluses but it has not delivered one for more than 20 years. Again, probably back when I was 16!

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

Now you are making that up!

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

They have just increased Australia's debt limit to a record $300 billion—I am not making this one up! I am not making any of this up, Senator Crossin. $300 billion at the last budget debt limit—

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

You are making it all up!

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

Okay, Senator Crossin, let me ask you this: do your budget papers say that Australia's debt limit is now $300 billion? Because if your answer is not 'yes' then you have no idea what you are doing on the other side of the chamber. You have no idea. If I had asked you this a year ago and said, 'Senator Crossin, in the budget in 2011 did the debt limit go to $250 billion?' Again, you would have to say, 'Yes'. You would have to say yes because it is true. It is a fact. And not only that; I love the way, Senator Humphries, that these things get slipped through—

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

That's right!

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

Slipped through in the budget! And remind me if I am not correct: I think that in 2011—or it may have been 2012—that all this was tied into the budget so we actually cannot object to the lift in the debt ceiling because it is all tied in with everything else and we would have to oppose the entire budget. Clever on the government's behalf, of course.

This is like a family going to their bank manager every year and saying, 'Please, sir, may we have some more?' and taking no responsibility for the economic sustainability of their family budget. All they do is just keep coming back here and saying, 'Please, can we have some more?' There is no responsible economic management from this government, and that is just a fact. I am not making it up, that is just a fact. You only have to look at the figures to see. I know that my good colleagues from over in WA would agree with me in saying that, because the mismanagement is appalling, absolutely appalling.

The point is, colleagues, that if the government did not waste so much money they would be able to direct properly the money that they do have to far more appropriate and useful policy measures. When we look at the waste and mismanagement, people are just astounded. And the hits just keep on coming; that is what amazes people. Just when you think you have seen the last possible—possible—bit of waste and mismanagement from government, up comes another one. It is great: the hits just keep on coming! They are just a bit like Alvin and the Chipmunks—there is another one just around the corner, just when you thought you had got through the lot. We should just have a look at the list of waste and mismanagement, because, like Pinocchio's nose, it is ever growing. We have Labor's failed border protection policies that have now blown out the immigration budget by over $5 billion; $650 million of that is in detention costs. We have the Home Insulation Program. Who can forget the pink batts? There was $2½ billion mismanaged, with at least half a billion dollars spent fixing the mistakes. We have the computers in schools blow-out; that is a favourite of many. Mind you, I am absolutely supportive of computers in schools, and everybody would know that I am absolutely supportive of everything we can possibly do to improve education outcomes, particularly for rural and regional students. But there was about a $1½ billion blow-out. We have Green Loans and Green Start. The $175 million Green Loans program was mismanaged and then eventually dumped and then replaced with the $130 million Green Start program, which never started. We have the solar homes program, an $850 million blow-out, with the program cancelled. The program was originally meant to cost $150 million. The list goes on.

What is really impressive is the talkfests that we have seen. I note for Hansard that 'impressive' was highly sarcastic. Labor's talkfests include the 2020 Summit. Who cannot remember the 2020 Summit? Does anybody have any idea of one outcome from the 2020 Summit? Anyone? I did not think so. We—when I say 'we' I mean we the taxpayers—spent $2 million on that. The Henry tax review cost $10 million. The list goes on and on.

Two of my favourites are Fuelwatch and GroceryWatch. They sounded really good, didn't they? 'Let's have Fuelwatch and GroceryWatch to make fuel and groceries cheaper.' Nearly $30 million was spent setting them up, and then they were dumped. Then, of course, we have Labor's NBN, involving Senator Conroy, a personal favourite of the Senate here, with the blow-out to over $50 billion—and that is not even included in the budget. This is extraordinary from this government.

There was spending of $2.1 billion on consultancies over the last four years. Let us just think for a moment, colleagues. If all of this waste had not happened, think of all the things that that funding could have been far more appropriately directed to which would not have resulted in this situation we have with this huge blow-out—the $120 billion black hole. You will love this one, my WA colleagues: the pool tables that used to be in Parliament House here.

Senator Williams interjecting—

Senator Williams remembers the pool tables. I must say that I am not too bad at the old pool table myself, but I had not frequented these ones. The government sold them for $5,000. Fair enough, you might say—very sensible. They were not being utilised terribly much, I understand. The government sold them for $5,000. They then spent $102,000 determining whether or not they got value for money. That is a wise, wise use of taxpayers' money, isn't it? Again, Hansard, that is sarcasm.

This is extraordinary. The list just goes on and on. When we see federal government departments and agencies spending more than $10 million checking what is said about them in the media, I think the Australian taxpayers would rightly be absolutely astounded and would think, 'How much money do you need to spend on checking what it is that you've said and done?' I just go to an article in the Australian on 27 August, and I will quote from it:

FEDERAL government departments and agencies are spending more than $10.3 million a year checking what is said about them in the media.

The hefty monitoring bill from external companies would pay for more than 100 full-time staff each earning $100,000 a year. An analysis by The Australian

and I have great respect for the Australian and for the author—

revealed the Department of Health and Ageing ploughs more than any other department or agency into monitoring with a bill of—

any guesses, Senator Williams or Senator Humphries?

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

Five?

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

No, you need to increase it: $940,000 for press clippings and transcripts in just one year, 2011-12.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Nash! I remind you to address your comments through the chair.

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

Certainly. I am suitably admonished. Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not suitably.

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

No, suitably admonished. Thank you very much, Mr Acting Deputy President. It is no wonder that the Australian people are shaking their heads when they look at this black hole. They think, 'How on earth did the government get us into this position?' When we look at all that waste and mismanagement, it is not at all surprising.

As I said, if the government had not wasted and did not continue to waste so much money, they would not need to make the cuts that they have. One cut in particular that I think Australians are very well aware of is the $5.45 billion cut to defence in the May budget. Australians are quite rightly outraged about that. In particular—which I think is just appalling—the government is restricting free flights home for soldiers on recreational leave to those soldiers who are under 21.

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

Disgraceful!

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

Thank you, Senator Humphries. I will take that interjection. That is absolutely disgraceful. So we see the list of waste and mismanagement, yet our defence forces are bearing the brunt of that. That is absolutely unacceptable. I went yesterday to the funeral of Private Robert Poate, who was an old boy of Canberra Grammar School and was an incredible Australia. The fact that other Australians just like him who are continuing to serve are suffering from budget cuts from this Labor government because they have wasted so much money is absolutely appalling and unacceptable.

The list goes on. Let us go to agriculture, because the hits just keep on coming. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry spent $77,627 on consultants to alter its mission statement. What happened then? They removed the word 'agriculture' from their mission statement. So we have nearly $80,000 with all this help and the consultants that they needed to do more than just change the mission statement—though I am sure there was a significant contribution towards it—which was 'increasing the profitability, competitiveness and sustainability of Australia's agricultural, fisheries and forestry industries'. That is what it was. They changed it to, 'We work to sustain the way of life and prosperity of all Australians.' What is that? I am a farmer. To spend all that money on advice and consultants, eventually altering their mission statement to remove the word 'agriculture' from it—what is this government doing? That is absolutely extraordinary. It is not at all surprising that the people of this nation have just about had a gutful. They also spent nearly $80,000 coming up with identity branding to work out how the department projected itself. All of that wrapped up in that $80,000 is absolutely extraordinary.

What is interesting is that, if we had not had all of this waste and mismanagement that I have been talking about, we would not have had to have cuts like the Labor government abolishing Land and Water Australia, cutting $63 million in CSIRO agricultural research and a $12 million cut in funding to the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. In the 2009-10 budget Labor cut cargo screening resources at ports and airports by $58 million, obviously risking our borders when it comes to plant disease and animal risk, and cut the government's contribution to biosecurity by $35 million. When we look at all these things and look at the list of waste, people wonder, not surprisingly, what on earth this government is doing. How dare they put at risk our borders? How dare they cut funding for agriculture for our farmers, who are the backbone of this nation? And yet we see $80,000 going on trying to get identity branding for the department. It is absolutely ludicrous.

When it comes to education, colleagues have already mentioned Gonski and the costs there. Again, if we had not seen the waste and mismanagement, we would not have had to see the cuts that we have seen. The minister has admitted—and I take his point—that, when they made changes to youth allowance, they could not have any greater impact on the budget. What I find absolutely appalling about that is that part of what they did was put a $150,000 parental income test cap on independent youth allowance for students. As the minister said at the time, that was because there is technically only X amount of money to go around in the youth allowance changes and it was a savings measure. So we see this situation from this Labor government where there is a parental income cap for students wanting to get independent youth allowance. How incongruous and stupid is that? These are students who have proved themselves independent of their parents. That is the nature of it. That is why they go and work for a year. They are independent of their parents when they go to university. But this government, which clearly has no understanding at all of the needs of rural and regional students, puts a cap in place saying, 'By the way, if your parents earn that, too bad: you're not eligible and cannot even apply.' That is $150,000 before tax for two parents. We are talking about a police officer and a schoolteacher whose children are unable to apply for independent youth allowance because of this government's stupid parental income cap because they did not have the money to increase the budget for the youth allowance measures.

When we look at all this waste and mismanagement, it is absolutely no surprise that the Australian people have concluded beyond all doubt that this government cannot manage money. They do not believe a word the government say anymore. The government no longer have any credibility. They never had any ability to manage the economy properly. The Australian people are seeing through this government day after day. They are seeing the negative impacts we are seeing right through our communities because of the economic mismanagement of this government, because the government have no vision for the future, and the Australian people will make this very clearly felt at the next election.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Nash for her contribution. She was obviously playing to the audience, which I understand is an audience very sympathetic to Senator Nash and to Senator Macdonald over there. I am sure they enjoyed that mixed speech full of slogans and rhetoric. But that was mostly what it was. Every now and again, though, Senator Nash had to confirm that those things were facts as if somehow that actually made them facts. Let me point out a few of the things that she claimed were facts when they were not.

She talked about a number of minor matters which I do not know the detail of, like an $80,000 expenditure on consultancy. That does not sound like good money spent; but, again, I do not know the detail of that. We will have a look at it. But, when we talked about programs worth many hundreds of millions of dollars, she talked about computers in schools and talked about the blow-out. Senator Nash should know—and I think she actually does know—that there was not a blow-out in that program. The government made an extra budget allocation to compensate the schools and states for the extra IT required to implement that program. We ended up with a fantastic program when we finally got a unit cost per computer on an average of $500. The extra budgetary allocation was to ensure that we had proper, powerful IT systems in place to get maximum benefit out of those computers. It was disappointing that some of the states did not step up to the mark to assist in that very generous position that the Commonwealth government took.

Some of Senator Nash's contribution reminded me of the contribution John Howard made in the lead-up to the 2007 election. When talking about interest rates, he said interest rates would always be lower under a Liberal government than they would be under a Labor government. Well, what is the cash rate today? The cash rate today is 3.5 per cent. That is lower than the cash rate was at any time under the last Liberal-National government. Yet we hear this sort of stuff peddled all the time as if there is a problem. If you listen to Senator Nash, you would think that the economy is a basket case. Of course, that is what the Liberal-National parties want you to think. They want to talk the economy down. They want to trash it.

Let us just look at some of the fundamentals of the economy and acknowledge that the global financial crisis was real. I just refer back to some of the comments I heard Senator Fifield make. One of the things he said was, 'Even if you accept that there was a GFC' and then he went on to talk about some other things. I think there was a GFC. I do not think there is a conspiracy theory group or a GFC deniers group going on. I notice members of the National Party want to accuse the Greens of being involved in conspiracy theory groups. But there ought not to be a conspiracy theory group suggesting that there was no global financial crisis. Maybe Senator Fifield should just look to Europe, to the United States and to other parts of the developing world to see the devastation that is still occurring as a direct result of the global financial crisis. It came here as well but we have not been affected by it so much because of the actions we took as a government to mitigate its effects on our economy and our community.

Let us just look at the fundamentals of the economy, which is no basket case. Let us just look at our economy as a whole. It is 11 per cent larger now than when we came to office, despite the worst global financial conditions since the Great Depression. Our economy has been growing faster than every other single major advanced economy—0.6 per cent in the March quarter and 3.7 per cent over the year. It is a larger rise than every other economy. Our unemployment rate is 5.1 per cent. It is less than half of what it is in Europe, and it is not quite half of what it is in the United States. But it is significantly below every other advanced economy. Our inflation rate is at a 13-year low, with underlying inflation at the bottom end of the RBA's target band of around two per cent for the year through to June. As I have said, the cash rates are at 3.5 per cent—lower than at any time under the Liberal government. We have got a huge investment pipeline with a record $260 billion at an advanced stage, helping to boost the productive capacity of our economy. Consumption in the country has also been growing by about four per cent throughout the year. We have very low debt. Net debt as a percentage of GDP is peaking at around one-tenth of the level across major advanced economies.

Let me just talk about debt for a minute, because when figures are bandied around they actually sound like significant figures. When people start to talking about millions or billions of dollars, a normal household would grapple with what that means in reality. Where is it? What sort of size is that? And what does it mean in terms of the overall economy? Net debt peaked as a percentage of GDP at 9.6 per cent in 2011-12. That is around one-tenth of the level of the major advanced economies. I want to make this comparison: this is like someone earning $100,000 a year and owing 9.6 thousand dollars. That is your debt. I know my mortgage is significantly higher than that. It would be like Senator Fifield owing $20,000 on his mortgage based on his wage. That is what it is. So when people talk about those massive figures, put them into perspective. You talk about what that percentage means and you give some real-life examples. Anyone would accept that that sort of debt level is incredibly manageable. Gross debt peaked as a percentage of GDP at 18 per cent for the year 2011-12. We start paying down gross debt as a net debt percentage of GDP from 2012-13. Net interest payments in 2012-13 will be 0.5 per cent of GDP. Again, that is like someone earning $100,000 a year and paying only $500 a year in net interest. If you make that comparison, it takes it back to what an individual might own.

That is not the economy that Senator Nash and Senator Fifield were describing. This economy is strong, and it is strong because of the actions that this government took. When the global financial crisis hit the world, we were quick to act because we did not want to see the ravages from massive unemployment that would follow. We decided that we would stimulate the economy—and I will talk about that in a minute. But what did the Liberal-National Party do? They actually voted against that. They said, 'Let the market rip.' Let us look to Europe—

Senator Humphries interjecting—

Sure, Senator Humphries reminds me that in the first tranche they were supportive of some stimulation, but of course they rejected the bulk of it. They rejected what was absolutely necessary. We would have seen that stimulus completely wasted if we had not followed what the Reserve Bank governor of the day said to do, which was: if you do not spend enough early you will end up spending much more later. We took advice from Treasury and from the Reserve Bank and spent the necessary money to protect this economy. We know—and all the Treasury modelling shows this; you will only have to look at the graphs—that when the private sector investment was removed from the economy, the stimulus investment filled that gap. We actually saw that.

I know how many jobs it saved. You can look at the Treasury modelling and see that it was in excess of 200,000 jobs. I know this from personal experience because I have opened many, many BER buildings. This was a fantastic program of $16.2 billion of unprecedented spending in our education sector to support the economy. When I opened those buildings the builder would often be there. I would talk to those builders and say: 'Did this project make a difference?' And builder after builder would tell me that this program actually stopped them putting off staff or stopped their companies from going under completely. That was what they would tell us. That is what they do tell us. We know it had a massive impact. We know it saved 200,000 jobs. That is 200,000 incomes that are spent in shops and other small business that then support other employment. It has an enormous flow-on effect. It is 200,000 people that then would not be on Newstart. The impact of saving this country from the ravages of high unemployment not only has untold economic benefit for this country but also gave workers dignity. It saved people from being unemployed. It saved people the worry of having to scratch out a meagre existence to provide for their families.

At the same time—and only a Labor government would do this—when it came time for the government to reinvest in our economy, we picked education to do it in. We have left a lasting legacy. We have built school halls, classrooms, libraries and science centres across more than 10,000 schools in this country. Those buildings will be there for 20, 30, 50 and sometimes more years as a lasting legacy, a great investment in the educational future of this country and of our kids—and it was something that the opposition voted against. It was a great legacy, a great investment in our economy, and it worked absolutely. And it gives you the opportunity to say, 'Oh, what GFC?'

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

No-one said that. Don't be ridiculous.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, Senator Fifield said, 'Even if you accept that there was a GFC.' Let me say to you that there was a GFC and most of the developed world is still suffering the consequences of it.

Let me just come back to BER building program for a minute. One would have thought that after the Liberal-National Party members voted against that building program, they would not turn up to the opening of the buildings. I did many openings in different areas in seats that were held by the Liberals or the Nationals and saw that the local National Party or Liberal Party member would turn up, stand up there for the photo and want to be part of it. They wanted to be part of saving their community. They wanted to be part of that spending program that supported local businesses, local industry, local jobs and saved jobs, so that money could be spent in local businesses supporting further jobs. They wanted to be associated with that but, of course, when it came time to put the money where their mouth was, they voted against it. It shows the hypocrisy of the Liberal-National Party when all they want to do is talk down the economy—when, as I have already pointed out, the economy is in the best shape of any in the developed world. We are the envy of the rest of the developed world, but all you want to do is trash talk the economy.

You talk about the $120 billion supposed black hole. That is another statement that reminds me of the John Howard statement that interest rates would always be lower under a Liberal Party than under a Labor Party government. It is just absolute nonsense. It is a fallacy. You have used numbers to manufacture this figure for your own political interests. Let us just look at the inputs you have put into that claim from the carbon price. You have used numbers from Frontier Economics, who happen to be a longstanding critic of the carbon pricing scheme. You have made assumptions on where the EU carbon price is right now and transferred that out into the future as if there is no movement. You have ignored the average EU carbon price over the last five years. You have ignored the fact that the EU is now considering policies to bolster the price. You have put the absolute worst-case scenario in those figures.

In terms of the dental care scheme, it is $4 billion for dental care and it is over six years, not the two years that you have put into your figures. Two years is quite different from six years, just in case you thought that was a minor discrepancy, Senator Williams. That is a significant distortion of the figures. But we also know that the program that that will replace will actually improve the long-term position of the budget as well because it brings dental care back to a sustainable level—again something that you have completely ignored.

You spoke about an NDS in schools. You incorrectly attributed the full cost to the Commonwealth where the states will bear some of the costs and you have also included a much faster transition that will cost significantly more than the assumptions made in the budget and the planning for these schemes. So again you have misled. You have cooked the books to get the result that you want to get. Then, of course, you base your figures on maintaining the Defence White Paper 2009 proposals, but ignore the fact that there is a new white paper coming for 2013. So even though you know there is going to be a different set of figures coming out of that, you have used figures that you know will not be relied upon.

This government is returning the budget to surplus on time as promised and ahead of every other single major advanced economy. We are seeing that, despite what even Senator Fifield conceded: that there has been $150 billion ripped out from government revenues due to global instability. We are very proud as a Labor government of what we have done to stimulate the economy. We are very proud that we have put jobs front and centre. We are incredibly proud that we have saved this economy from falling into the recession. We are incredibly proud that we have done that in the worst financial conditions the world has seen since the global financial crisis. The record of this government is incredibly strong in this respect.

Let us talk about those jobs for a minute. Jobs were front and centre and that is why we acted to support, in the face of the global financial crisis, measures that would support many hundreds of thousands of jobs. We have an exceptional jobs record, with this economy creating around 800,000 jobs since this government came to office while the rest of the world has lost millions. You only have to look at Europe and the United States today, where there are still millions of people unemployed as a direct result of the global financial crisis. Look at their result and look at our result: 800,000 jobs grown since this government came to office; millions of jobs lost in the rest of the developed world. We have an unemployment rate at 5.1 per cent, one of the lowest rates in the industrialised world and less than half of that in Europe.

But what is the Liberals response to that? We can probably just have a little look at what is happening in Queensland right now. Their response is to cut 14,000 public sector jobs. That is their response. There is no commitment to jobs from the Liberal-National Party, and that is a fact. Senator Nash talked about facts, and wanted to reinforce all of her claims as facts. Well the facts are there for everyone to see. If you elect a Liberal-National government, they will slash jobs. They do not care about working people, they do not care about the dignity of work, they do not care about the suffering that unemployment creates. And they certainly do not care about the communities and the small businesses that rely on those incomes for those businesses to grow and survive. They seem to forget that jobs are not just numbers; those wages are spent in local communities, supporting local jobs, supporting local small businesses. Those sorts of cuts destroy communities and provide enormous hardship.

We have also seen the government in Victoria, the Baillieu government, slash $300 million from the TAFE budget—sabotaging the educational future of regional and city kids—and we have not heard a peep out of the National Party about sabotaging regional kids' educational futures. It is an absolute disgrace, and the Australian public would be very well advised to look closely at what newly elected Liberal and National parties are doing with jobs, with education and with their own state economies, because that is what they will get if they actually elect a Liberal-National coalition when the next election comes around. I hope Australians will learn from those lessons, and I believe they will stick with this government.

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

The Labor Party in government always stuffs up our public finances. It always comes down to the coalition to fix up the fiscal mess that the Labor Party in government has left behind. People across Australia instinctively know that the Labor Party always spends too much, which is why it always has to tax too much, which is why it always drives up government net debt, and that is why it always comes down to Liberal and National parties in government to sort it all out, to pay down debt, to deliver surplus budgets, to deliver income tax cuts, to deliver all of these things that people across Australia have become used to from Liberal-National coalition governments.

Instead of strengthening our economy, instead of making our economy more resilient, instead of making our economy more competitive internationally, instead of focusing on our productivity growth, this government has hit our economy with one new tax after the other, with one new bit of red tape after another—in fact, more than 18,000 new bits of red tape under this government over the past four years. You cannot keep adding more and more lead to our saddle bags and think it is not going to have an impact somewhere along the way. When you have a government that keeps putting more lead into our saddle bags, eventually it slows down even the most resilient and strongest of economies.

It is worthwhile at this point to reflect on a bit of history. Back in 1996 the Howard government, as a coalition government always does, inherited $96 billion worth of Hawke-Keating Labor Party debt. It took us 10 years to pay that off, and not only did we pay off $96 billion worth of Hawke-Keating Labor government debt, but we also delivered surplus budget after surplus budget, we delivered income tax cut after income tax cut, we delivered genuine tax reform through the introduction of the GST, which replaced wholesale sales tax, which was inefficient, and a whole series of inefficient state taxes. We also left the budget in the best shape of any budget in the history of the Commonwealth. When we left government in 2007 the budget was $22 billion in the positive. We had a $22 billion government budget surplus. There was no government net debt—zero—. There was $70 billion worth of Commonwealth net assets, and the government in 2007 was collecting more than $1 million in net interest payments from the net Commonwealth assets that had been invested.

In just under five short years, this government has completely turned that around. In less than five short years, we are now looking at a situation where this government has delivered $174 billion worth of accumulated deficits, where this government is heading for $145 billion worth of government net debt, and instead of collecting $1 billion in net interest payments from the investments in the Future Fund, this government is planning to spend nearly $30 billion just to pay the interest on the debt that it has accumulated over the past 4½ years. Just imagine what the government could do with $30 billion if it did not have to spend it on interest payments to service that debt that it has accumulated over the past few years.

This is not enough for this government—$174 billion worth of accumulated deficits, $145 billion worth of Commonwealth net debt is not enough; they have to go harder. In the few months that might be left for this Labor government, they are thinking: 'We've got to be true to ourselves; we've got to be true to our DNA. We've got to go harder when it comes to the reckless spending.' So in the last few weeks they have been spending like drunken sailors. Spending commitment after spending commitment after spending commitment—all in relation to meritorious issues. We are not questioning the issues. There are a lot of things that would be nice to have but, ultimately, the question is whether we can afford all of the spending commitments that are being locked in by this government right now. That is why we are now looking at a $120 billion budget black hole under this government, which comes on top of the $174 billion worth of accumulated deficits.

We have a government that spends too much, which is why it always has to cast around for more cash, which is why it is always coming up with yet another ad hoc tax grab—some of them retrospective in order to really make sure that it really collects a lot of money—and which is why it is always looking at borrowing more money and pushing up the levels of debt.

On top of all of that, we have a government with a Treasurer who hates success, who hates successful people. Not just through his rhetoric is that blatantly obvious; it is also obvious through the policy initiatives that have been pursued by this government over the last 4½ years that invariably seek to penalise success. The truth of the matter is that, for Australia to be successful, we need the Australian people to be successful. For Australia to be successful, we need Australian businesses to be successful. To hit them with tax after tax after tax and with 18,000 new pieces of red tape is not the way to incentivise and encourage success.

We have a Treasurer in Australia who is somehow inspired by Bruce Springsteen to actually go after people who are successful. This is a Treasurer who does not really seem to like success. That is not the way to take Australia forward. As a result, this is a government that is taking Australia in the wrong direction. We are now less competitive internationally than we were 4½ years ago. The cost of business has consistently gone up and up and up. It is now harder to attract investment into Australia than it was 4½ years ago and, of course, that will have significant medium- to long-term consequences for Australia and for our economic prosperity moving forward if it is not corrected by the next government very quickly.

Under this government, over the last 4½ years we have had 26 new or increased taxes. Obviously, the mining tax and the carbon tax are the most high-profile taxes, but we have had a whole series of others. The first big tax grab, the first big lazy cash grab, was the alcopops tax in April 2008. That was going to fix binge drinking—there would not be binge drinking anymore as long as we put in place a 70 per cent increase in the form of the alcopops tax. We had the condensate tax; we had the increase in the luxury car tax; we had the flood tax, the mining tax and the carbon tax; and we had successive increases in tobacco taxes. Despite all of these increases in taxes and despite the best terms of trade in 140 years, over the last 4½ years this government has not been able to balance the books. So when we are talking about $174 billion worth of accumulated deficits under this government, which are there in black and white for all to see in the budget papers, it comes after and despite 26 new or increased taxes and it comes despite the best terms of trade in 140 years.

We have had ad hoc tax grab after ad hoc tax grab to feed Labor's addiction to wasteful spending. They are still not on top of it and they are still dealing with budget deficit after budget deficit. And, with a $120 billion Labor Party budget black hole moving forward, guess what? There will be more from where the others came from. There will be more new taxes and there will be more new debt in order to fund the spending spree of the last few weeks. One of the things that the Labor Party are particularly bad at is coming up with a tax that actually leaves the budget better off.

You would think that, if a government comes up with a new multibillion dollar tax, if a government has a significant fiscal challenge, if a government is looking at a gaping big hole in its budget—a government that has $174 billion worth of accumulated deficits—like the mining tax, the least it would do is use it to help bring the budget back into surplus. But, no, this government is so good at spending. It spends faster than it can bring the money in, which is why the mining tax—that is, the mining tax revenue minus the cost of all of the related spending commitments and various measures—left the budget worse off than when the mining tax package was announced.

How can you do that? How can you come up with a multibillion dollar new tax which has massive implications for a very important industry for Australia and end up in a situation where the budget will be worse off to the tune of $4 billion over the forward estimates, and even more worse off over time because the revenue from the mining tax was always going to moderate whereas the cost of the related spending commitments was always going to go up? There is much wrong with the carbon tax and the mining tax. Without getting sidetracked by the detail of everything that is wrong with those taxes, the carbon tax package leaves the budget worse off too. The government aims to collect $25 billion over the forward estimates, but it has already spent $30 billion. There are all these new taxes and still the government is going deeper and deeper and deeper into the red. No wonder this government is not able to ever balance the books.

Since the government announced the mining tax and the carbon tax, they have been confronted with a few developments that are further undermining their fiscal position. There are serious doubts over the revenue the mining tax will raise. There is no doubt in our mind that this is because, firstly, the government seriously overestimated the commodity price assumptions and production volume assumptions underlying their mining tax revenue estimates. Secondly, because of the direct incentive the federal government has given to state governments to increase their state royalties on iron ore and coal, given that the federal government is going to credit royalties on iron ore and coal against any mining tax liability, the revenue will again be less than they thought. Since the dodgy mining tax deal was negotiated exclusively and in secret between the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the three biggest mining companies, five out of six states have increased state royalties either on iron ore or coal—five! Both Liberal and Labor governments have increased royalties on iron ore or coal since Wayne Swan and Julia Gillard signed that dodgy mining tax deal. Western Australia, of course, removed the concession on iron ore fines, which is an effective increase in the royalty rate. South Australia increased royalties on iron ore. Tasmania increased royalties on iron ore. New South Wales increased royalties on coal. Queensland on Tuesday announced an increase in the royalties on coal. When Tasmania and South Australia increase their royalties nobody takes any notice, because the volumes are actually very low. When New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia increase their royalties, it has a more significant impact. Fundamentally, the way the government have structured their mining tax deal has exposed the federal budget to structural risk, and it is a structural risk of the government's own making, because the government's budget is now hostage to decisions by state and territory governments to increase their royalty arrangements.

They have removed the floor price on carbon. They still want us to believe that their expectation is that in 2015-16 the carbon price will be $29 a tonne. If that is what they truly believe, if they truly believe that the carbon price in 2015-16 will be $29 a tonne, why did they see the need to remove the floor price at $15 a tonne? Because they know what experts around the world know: that the international carbon price in 2015-16 is not expected to be anywhere above $10 a tonne. That is another massive budget black hole, because the revenue will be significantly lower than what the government thought it would be.

Then we have the spending frenzy that has been happening in the last couple of weeks. Everybody knows full well that this government do not have a clue as to how they are going to actually fund all these promises that they are making. It seems that this government have completely given up. They do not actually care whether they need to somehow come up with the money to fund all of the promises they are making—otherwise, you would think that the health minister and the Prime Minister would be on the same wavelength when they explain how they are going to fund the dental scheme. You would think that the Prime Minister going to the National Press Club on a Monday lunchtime to outline the government's response to the Gonski report would actually say where the money was coming from to fund all the promises that she is making in the context of education. But, no, there is none of that. We just get spending promise after spending promise without any indication whatsoever as to how the government are going to fund them.

The government wants us to believe that everything is going to change this financial year, that this financial year is going to be totally different from last year, the year before that, the year before that and the year before that—in fact, that this year's budget is going to be a completely different budget from any Labor budget for the last 20 years. The government wants us to believe that this year we are going to have a $1.5 billion surplus. It ain't gonna happen. It ain't gonna happen unless the government comes up with some very serious spending cuts in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. The other alternative, of course—the one the government pursues quite readily—is it goes for some more massive increases in the tax take.

The reason I can say that with a lot of credibility is because I look at Labor's track record. Look no further than the last financial year. Back in July 2010 the Treasurer told us that the deficit would be $10 billion—that we were back on the path to an early surplus by 2012-13. So the deficit in 2011-12 was only going to be $10 billion. But six months later that was $12.3 billion, six months after that it was $22.6 billion, six months after that it was $37.1 billion and another six months after that it was $44.4 billion. Within less than two years the deficit for the last financial year had blown out by $34.4 billion. It has more than quadrupled. And this government want us to believe that they are going to deliver on a $1.5 billion surplus in the context of these revenue write-downs and the spending sprees that we have just experienced in recent weeks! Give us a break—it ain't gonna to happen. In fact, senior economists have been telling us that in their assessment the government are currently on track to deliver a deficit this year of 1.5 per cent of GDP, or in the order of $21.6 billion. It is time for the government to come out with some answers. It is time for the government to come clean.

In the short time that is left to me I want to touch on some of the comments that Senator Marshall made. Senator Marshall was suggesting that debt was low in Australia by international standards. That is true, because our starting position in Australia was very different from the starting position in the countries of Europe and in the US. In Europe and in the US they have been at it for longer—the high spending, the high taxing and the high levels of red tape. They have been at it for longer. This government is working very hard to catch up. But, yes, it is true, even this government in 4½ years has not quite been able to get to the incredible levels of debt that we have seen across large parts of Europe. But do not get too cocky about it because, if you look at where Ireland was four or five years ago and where we are now, it does not take much to actually significantly change that particular proviso. Senator Marshall says that net debt will peak at 9.6 per cent. That was before the latest spending spree. That was before the latest revenue write-downs.

Let me make one more observation about this assertion that Senator Marshall made that somehow the reason the government is in bad shape financially is that the revenue has collapsed in the wake of the financial crisis. That cannot be true for the 2011-12 financial year, because for the first budget after the global financial crisis—the 2009-10 budget—Treasurer Swan estimated that the revenue from 2011-12 would be $310 billion. It ended up being $330 billion. That is a $20 billion increase in revenue for that year compared to what he thought. Just because he inflated his expectations along the way does not mean that revenue has collapsed. It only means it has collapsed against his excessive expectations.

I am going to run out of time. There is much more to be said about the mess that Labor has created and there is much to be done to fix it up. Only a coalition government will fix up Labor's fiscal mess.

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

Senator Cormann talks about not getting too cocky. I think there is probably nothing more cocky than a Liberal senator in this place talking about fiscal management and managing the economy when they have a confirmed unfunded promise of a $70 billion black hole. They have very little credentials when it comes to talking about our economy. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, has admitted that he is not interested in economics or the views of economists—as we can all remember. It was not that long ago that the Leader of the Opposition made it very clear that he was not interested in economics or the views of economists and yet, interestingly enough, we have a debate by Liberal senators on the economy, on the budget and on fiscal responsibility when we know that they certainly do not honour the Charter of Budget Honesty of their former Treasurer, Peter Costello. Instead of actually following that charter of budget honesty, they would prefer to have their costings done secretly behind closed doors by nothing greater than some kind of catering company or an accountant or the like so that nobody knows how their costings were worked out—nothing to do with abiding by the principles of the Charter of Budget Honesty, given the charter was something espoused by their former Treasurer, who they talk of so highly.

Well, we are very much committed to that charter of budget honesty. We are also very much committed to returning another surplus, as we have already done this financial year. We know when it comes to surpluses—and we have heard a lot in this place about the issue of surpluses—that the opposition are not interested at all in surpluses. In fact, Tony Abbott has walked away from a budget surplus. He said something like 'we will get back to surplus as quickly as possible' but he will not even put a date on it. Why is that? We know it is because the Liberal Party do not have any real strategy about how they are going to govern this country and about what their real policies are. They do not have any real policies. They do not have any real costings other than black hole costings. They do not have any real savings. They do not really have any leadership when it comes to the issue of the economy or the policies that are needed to drive Australia forward.

We know very much, though, that the first actions of an Abbott government will be to look at things like reversing income tax measures for families, higher taxes for small business—but tax breaks for big mining companies of course—lowering pensions and lowering superannuation for working Australians. These are things that are not good for Australians and Australians are very much aware of some of these things.

As I touched on, we have a confirmed unfunded promise of a $70 billion black hole, something that has been confirmed by Andrew Robb and Joe Hockey, who have both said that the coalition would have to find some $70 billion in cuts to services—a slash and burn approach, of course, just like we are seeing a number of Liberal premiers doing at the moment. Dare I say it, we could be looking at the slash and burn approach of Premier Campbell Newman in Queensland. When it comes to skills, he is cutting the Skilling Queenslanders for Work program of $287 million. They are talking about breast-screening programs as well and the public service is taking a huge cut. Obviously, these are replicated in Victoria when we look at the TAFE cuts that are going on there. That fits very well with the mantra that has been coming out of the federal Liberal Party from the mouths of Mr Robb and Mr Hockey. We know that on 12 August 2011 Mr Hockey said on the Sunrise program:

I will tell you what we are doing. We are going through the budget, line by line and item by item. The government will spend -Liberal or Labor-will spend $1500 billion over the next four years. It is a massive amount of money. Therefore finding 50, 60 or 70 billion is about identifying waste and identifying areas where you do not need to proceed with programs.

Well, before they even start, the $70 billion that they have admitted that they need to find in savings in fact translates into the equivalent of the cost of Medicare payments for four years or halting all age pensions for two years. These are dramatic cuts that the federal Liberal Party are saying that they themselves will need to find. Then they have the audacity to come in here and talk about the economy and talk about fiscal management when that kind of fiscal management is certainly something that this country does not need at all.

I noticed recently the Leader of the Opposition was in my home state of Tasmania and he put out a press release on 25 August this year in relation to the coalition's supposedly forward-thinking working group to grow Tasmania. Part of this working group that the Leader of the Opposition talked about creating will 'create jobs'. He says it is a working group for Tasmania that is going to create jobs. Let us look at the factor that it is going to 'create jobs'. One thing we know is that the opposition is going to turn back the clock when it comes to carbon pricing. What is that going to do? We have a whole new economy and we are creating jobs in this new economy and in this new sector through renewable energy and in my home state of Tasmania the creation of jobs around renewable energy is a really important factor. We have the Mussleroe wind farm and we have another wind farm—they are in the north-west and the north-east of the state—and it is all about creating jobs and creating renewable energy for the future. Of course, it is renewable energy that we can then sell back into the grid of which we are part of in the mainland. So it is about creating jobs around renewable energy for which the carbon pricing's Clean Energy Package provides as big polluters change their behaviour, as the need for new kinds of energy come on board and are doing so through things like the ARENA board approving such new renewable energy schemes. It is all a really important factor that is going to create jobs. But if the Leader of the Opposition is elected to govern this country he will turn back those. His working group that will create jobs is a very interesting piece of rhetoric indeed.

What is the alternative? The alternative is incredibly stark. We have a very forward-thinking Gillard Labor government that is embarking on the new economy and a whole new agenda, one that we need to embrace like the rest of the globe is doing. In the meantime, we are doing it in a fiscally sensible way, in a way where we continue to ensure that we return the budget to surplus. Our economy is envied around the world because we got through the global financial crisis and with that have come some great benefits for Australians and Australian families—things like the tripling of the tax-free threshold. These are the things that are really at risk here.

We had a tax-free threshold of $6,000 and this government have now tripled that to $18,200. That means many Australians who earn up to $80,000 will get a tax saving, but many also will not have to put in a tax return because they will be under the threshold and will not have paid tax. This is the largest increase to the tax-free threshold in many years. It was not something that we just thought was a good idea, that the Gillard Labor government introduced and thought was a good idea; it was very much embraced and those in the NGO sector knew that this was needed and something that would benefit many low-income Australians, of which there are many in my home state.

This is one of the largest tax cuts for low-income earners that this country has ever seen. What does it mean? It means that a mother with some part-time work will get a tax cut of $600 if she earns $20,000 and $503 if she earns $25,000. That is significant for low-income earners. On top of that, there is the new schoolkids bonus, which has already been automatically provided to many Australian households. In fact, in Tasmania I know that 34,000 families have benefited from that cash bonus—another really important, positive reform by the government.

Through the Clean Energy Supplement, something we know will be rolled back under a coalition government, we have seen a 1.7 per cent increase to pensions, allowances and family payments. All these things will be in jeopardy under a coalition-Abbott government, as it searches hard to find its $70 billion of savings, which Mr Hockey and Mr Robb have said that they need to find. These are the things that will be cut. These are the things that will really affect average Australian families and average Australian pensioners if the disastrous event of a coalition government were to occur.

We are not just looking at the needs of Australians here and now; we are also looking into the future. Of course that is what the clean energy package is about. Of course that is what carbon pricing is about—which is why so many other countries are doing it as well, to address global warming. We are also looking at the fact that we are living in the Asian century. There have been a number of academic writings on the fact. There has been a lot of debate and discussion about the growing economies in the Asian region. We are in the Asian region. We are neighbours of Asian countries. Not only will we benefit from our Asian neighbours; they will benefit from our relationship with them in the areas of clean energy jobs, technology and skills and so forth.

Part of being in an Asian century is building a new economy. What does a new economy look like? What are the things that Labor have started to get on with to ensure that we have a strong, robust, new economy and that we embrace the future—not one that looks back to the 1950s and turns back the clock, ensures we do nothing and only protects the biggest mining companies in the country while the rest of the country can find their own way? No, we are looking forward to things like the National Broadband Network to ensure businesses are more productive and that we can deliver better government services to them. We have brought in the minerals resource rent tax to increase retirement savings, provide tax relief to small businesses, which are not in the mining boom fast lane, and invest in the critical infrastructure that this very large country needs—as well as the ongoing upkeep of that infrastructure.

On top of that, we are increasing our skills base through trade training centres, historic reforms to our skills system and an expanded education system from primary to tertiary with the national curriculum, equipping Australia for current and future jobs, and looking ahead to ensure that Australia builds on the new economy and builds a bright future for ourselves and our children. That means looking at the Gonski review and continuing to improve our school and early childhood education. We know that the research says that the early years are critical to childhood development and that is an area where we have invested heavily. It includes ensuring children's health is kept at a pace that is required through good dental care, something that was neglected under the 11 years of Howard. He abolished the Commonwealth dental scheme—it did not matter that teeth were part of the human body; they were excluded and did not matter, and that cost families a lot of money to ensure that their children were provided with the necessary care.

We are returning the budget to surplus on time and as promised, and ahead of every major advanced economy. That is an enviable position to be in. It is a little rich for Liberal senators in this place to talk about budget blow-outs, not meeting surpluses and all these sorts of things when they are the ones who need to look in the mirror. Mr Robb and Mr Hockey have said, time and time again, on NewsRadio, on Sunrise, on ABC News 24 and on a number of media outlets that they are going to have find $70 billion worth of savings, that they will not be returning any budget to any surplus any time soon. Of course, that is in stark contrast to the strong economic position that Treasurer Wayne Swan has us in due to the good, responsible decisions we have made in ensuring that we can be fiscally responsible for our country under a new Australian economy. What does that really mean? We have delivered savings of $33.6 billion in the last budget and more than $100 billion over the previous four budgets to fund the important priorities of dental health, education, the NBN, increasing our skills base and so on by looking at our priority areas that really matter for our nation's future. That is what good Labor governments do. They look at the things that matter. They look at the issues that matter for the Australian people and for our country and they act accordingly. And they look ahead, they look into the future. They are progressive, not regressive. They are not looking backwards into the 1950s. They do not say: 'We should put our heads in the sand. There's global warming but we're just not going to do anything about it. Don't mind the rest of the world acting on it; we'll just put our heads in the sand.'

No, that is not what good Labor governments do at all. They look at the areas of reform that are needed for our country, that are needed desperately for the Australian people, for our families, for our newly arrived migrants who are helping build our country, for our refugees—all the people who make up Australia, this great multicultural nation that I am so proud to live in. And I am so proud to be part of a Labor government that is inclusively ensuring that everybody has the opportunity to succeed, to achieve and to have a good, strong, decent, healthy life, an education and all the benefits that we all enjoy so much.

I find it a bit rich that the debate from those opposite is so fixated on issues on which they themselves do not have good standing. Let us look at workplace relations. I could talk all day about workplace relations and the opposition's Work Choices policy. It helped them lose government. Their own Prime Minister could not hold his own seat as a result of their diabolical policy that was going to rip decent wages and conditions away from working families. That still exists somewhere over there in the ether of the Liberal Party. We know that some of them want it to raise its ugly head from time to time; it has not completely gone away. That is just one area of policy. Where do the Liberals stand on workplace relations? No-one really knows, but I know that the future certainly is not bright.

And then we can go to health and look at the areas we have invested in—GP superclinics, increasing hospital beds and mental health. Mental health is an incredibly important area. These days we are happy to talk about it; we find it much more comfortable to talk about than we did in times past. We can look at infrastructure. The broadband network is another area they are not interested in and want to turn back. Even senators from regional parts of the country are not interested in the National Broadband Network.

Of course, I have already touched on how we have such a strong fiscal position compared to the black hole of those opposite. And then there are the really important ongoing factors around the cost of living—family tax benefit increases, age pension increases and the introduction of a paid parental leave scheme. That is something that after 11 years a Liberal government could not do, leaving Australia as one of only two OECD countries to not have a paid parental leave scheme. We can look at our childcare rebate increases, the environment and climate change. We have done so much and they stand for nothing. (Time expired)

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As an accountant, and also having spent five years in banking, I know that, when people spin you a yarn about the marvellous things they are going to do, there is one way you can check the reality against what they have promised, and that is to have a look at the figures. So we can have a look at the figures to see exactly what this government has been like. When people are listening to this they think a deficit is all your debt and a surplus is all your profits. Deficit and surplus are like profit and loss in a government business—and debt is what happens when you keep on making a loss.

Back in 2008-09 this government basically said to the Australian people, 'In 2008-09 our business will make a profit of $21.7 billion.' What actually happened was that they made a loss, a deficit, of $27.1 billion. It was a loss; they went out the back door. And in 2009-10 they said, 'We'll make a profit of $19.7 billion.' But they actually made a net loss of $54.8 billion. Back in 2008 they said, 'In 2010-11 we'll make a profit of $19 billion.' But they actually made a loss of $47.7 billion. In 2008 they said, 'In 2011-12 we promise we'll make a profit of $18.9 billion.' When 2011-12 came along, guess what? They made a loss of $44.4 billion. What you can see here is obviously that what they promise is never what they deliver. They are so far out that you just cannot take them seriously.

The problem we have got lately is their debt. Back in 2008, Treasurer Wayne Maxwell Swan said that they would just need a temporary increase in the overdraft limit—because they are such good business people! He had a $75 billion overdraft limit, and he just wanted a temporary increase. He was going to have a bit of a day at the shops with his mates—a bit of a day at the track—and he said, 'Can you just bump my overdraft up from $75 billion to $200 billion?—but it's only temporary.' You can trust them; they are such good economic managers!

Then, what happened? The reason they said they wanted this increase in the overdraft is that China apparently was going to go into recession. But, as we all remember, it did not; it never missed a beat. And neither did the overdraft. The overdraft for our nation went up to $200 billion and just kept going up. The next thing, they're back: 'We want another extension in the overdraft. This time we want to extend the overdraft to a quarter of a trillion dollars—$250 billion—and then we can talk about our debt just like the Europeans do, in portions and fractions of trillions.'

So then we had a quarter of a trillion dollar overdraft. And that was as bad as it was going to get; it was never going to get any worse than that—but, of course, it did. The next thing, they are back, saying, 'We want another extension on the overdraft'—this time to $300 billion. And the latest we have heard is that their figures are out the door by, in forward projections, $120 billion.

What does this mean for our overdraft at the moment? They said they would never get close to a quarter of a trillion dollars. Well, the prediction is that the overdraft for our nation is now going to be, by 2020—even on the most conservative estimates—around about $370 billion. How are we going to pay this money back? Where is the money going to come from? Every time, for years, they would go to the doors and hear, 'It's out of control', and always we would get the same thing: 'Don't worry; trust us. It's all under control.'

They borrowed an extra $2 billion four weeks ago. The next week they borrowed an extra $2 billion. I'll grant you, last week they paid back one. These are the people who promise us they are going to have a surplus—that this year we will be in surplus. They try to trick you that they have delivered a surplus, but of course they have not; it is just another one of their promises.

And in the midst of this, what did we get, for all that money they borrowed? What did we get? Where is it? We could have bought a couple of Central African republics for that money. What did we get? We got ceiling insulation, and we got school halls. But you would expect that with that sort of money there would be inland rail, massive ports, massive new dams, freeways—but nothing; there is nothing there. They have just put it all up against the wall. And now they are panicking, having to freeze spending to regional Australia. And then Minister Crean comes out and says, 'It's not a freeze; it's a stocktake'—it is like they are running a corner store, and they are going to have a stocktake. But why do you need a stocktake? Don't you know what is in your budget? They say, 'We're trying to get some more transparency on it.' This stocktake sounds awfully like delay to me. It sounds awfully like you are not going to spend any money, to me. And of course it is because the panic is setting in. All of a sudden it has become apparent that they are running out of money, that they are getting towards their next overdraft limit. All of a sudden it really is starting to become a concern.

These people went out the back door when the prices of commodities were at a peak. When it was actually boom times, they went out the back door. How on earth are they going to manage the show when it is struggle time, when there is a peel off in commodity prices? And that is happening right now. How are they going to manage it? What they have done thus far has been an absolute circus, and the circus is never better reflected than in the carbon tax. These people cannot hit one target. If they were a credit paper, you would reject it. They have not been able to hit one target of one promise. They have not come within a bull's roar of delivering one promise—but they are, apparently, able to cool the planet. Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Treasurer Wayne Swan can cool the planet.

So we are going to get ourselves a carbon tax, because—you have to understand—it is morally right to be poor! It is morally right that we should make you poorer, that we should go to people and say: 'You know what? We don't think your power bills are dear enough; we're going to jack them up a bit, because we've got to look after the Greens'! They say: 'We don't believe that it's morally right that we should have a competitive price for power to keep manufacturing in Australia, because we've got to look after the Greens. We don't believe it's morally right that you should have the capacity to buy cheap fertiliser—something that has a high usage, and creation of it creates a higher usage of carbon emissions—we're going to make everything dearer.'

And as if it could not get any more insane than what it currently is, the way they are going to do it is to buy carbon permits—of course!—this fictitious market that we are going to indulge ourselves in. So, as you are getting poorer in Australia, you can live in the happiness—in that warm glow—that the money is going out of your wallet and to a trader who is collecting their commission and then sending it overseas to, I don't know, the east coast of Africa, or wherever it goes, so that you can know that you are poorer for the sake of a trader who is buying some fictitious permit from some place that you have never ever been to and will never ever go to! And of course, this all makes sense! In this Wayneonomics world, this all makes sense. It is just another promise that you can believe from the current Labor Party government. But the ultimate test: I do not think they are actually going to cool the planet. But I will tell you what is real: their debt is real. The fact is they are making people poorer: that is real. It is a real fact that they have created this debacle of an economy, when they were given so much. All they had to do was sit down and shut up and smile and they would have got somewhere.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 6 pm the time for this debate has expired.