Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Communications (Senator Fifield) to questions without notice asked by Senators Keneally and McAllister today relating to the 2018-19 Budget.

The opposition asked two very simple questions of Mr Fifield. The first of those questions related to the issue of the government's debt levels. We asked: has the debt level doubled over the course of this government? Of course, we got no answer.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, we did.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, we never got an answer.

Senator Colbeck interjecting—

I don't know what NAPLAN's got to do with this, Senator Colbeck, but we got no answer on the question that we were asking. We were asking about debt. What Mr Fifield should have said in answer to the question about this government's doubling of debt is that gross debt in this country is projected to reach $684 billion in the medium term. I will repeat that, in case members of the government didn't hear the level of debt: the projections are that, under this government, in the medium term, debt is going to reach $684 billion.

We asked a second question of Senator Fifield. We asked him to comment on a quote by the fellow he used to iron shirts for, as I understand it, before question time, former Treasurer Costello. Mr Costello made an observation of this government's competence in the budget that we are expecting to see tonight. In an article that appeared in The Age today headed 'Costello savages budget strategy', Mr Costello, talking about the debt levels of this government, said:

It means that future generations will be paying interest on the debt that is being run up on their behalf over the last decade, and they will probably be paying for the rest of their lives.

The probabilities are we will never get back to where we were, you and I will die before that happens.

This is an observation by former Treasurer Costello on the level of debt under this government. Former Treasurer Costello has nailed this government. He's nailed them. He knows, just as I'm sure you know, Madam Deputy President, that this government's budget strategy is all wrong. Former Treasurer Costello makes it very clear that under the policies that are currently being prosecuted by this government, in his view, we will not see a return to surplus in his life—

Senator Abetz interjecting—

I've got my own handwriting here, Senator Abetz. I do have to confess: it is a bit hard to read. I'm not the neatest. But I can read what former Treasurer Costello says about your debt strategy, and he's nailed it. This $80 billion tax cut which you're proposing for big business is simply the wrong strategy. Costello knows it; I suspect even you know it, Senator Abetz. I reckon that the senator sitting next to you, Senator Macdonald—yes, he's just nodded!—knows that this is the wrong strategy. Costello has got it right. The strategy that the Turnbull government is adopting on debt is the wrong one. When our debt is spiralling out of control, what does this government propose to do? It proposes to give an $80 billion tax cut to the big end of town, to big businesses and to the big banks. Seventeen billion dollars of this $80 billion is going to go to the big banks. It's the wrong policy. Costello's got it right. (Time expired)

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When the Labor Party try to talk serious economics, as they have been desperately trying to do today, who do they seek to rely on? Is it former Treasurer Wayne Swan? Never. Is it former Labor Treasurer Paul Keating? Never. Who do they have to fall back on to try to get some credibility into their narrative? It is none other than former Treasurer Peter Costello, a person whose budgets were opposed, criticised and condemned year after year by the Australian Labor Party. They now come into this place, only quoting half of what Mr Costello says, pretending to champion that which he has quite rightly pointed out—that is, that Australia does have a debt burden. It is a debt burden that we inherited from the Australian Labor Party, with a trajectory of debt that was baked into projections and legislation, deliberately so, by the Labor-Greens minority government. Let's make no mistake, and our fellow Australians need to know this: but for the Abbott-Turnbull government taking action in relation to the trajectory, today's debt would not be the figure asserted by Senator Farrell but would be $1 trillion, about three times as high. Let's make no mistake about that. We have sought to bring down that trajectory of debt which is a terrible burden on the next generation. It is a legacy that Labor will need to wear around its neck for generations to come.

But let's also be very clear: in the 2013 election, Labor asserted to the Australian people that they were going to be good economic managers. They proposed $5 billion worth of cuts, which we accepted on a bipartisan basis. So everybody who voted Labor, Liberal or Nationals voted for $5 billion worth of cuts to expenditure. At the very first attempts for these cuts to be implemented, and ever since, what did the Australian Labor Party do? It deliberately spiked the government's agenda—and, indeed, its own agenda—by hypocritically voting against Labor Party policy in this place to ensure that we could not rein in the budget deficit and the debt as we wanted to, and as Labor themselves solemnly promised to the Australian people.

Now, in the short time available let's deal with this nonsense about company tax cuts. If they are interested in quoting previous ministers, I would draw their attention to previous minister, Senator Wong; previous minister, Bill Shorten; previous minister, Chris Bowen; and would-be minister, Dr Andrew Leigh—a whole host of Labor Party luminaries who have said time and time again that the way that you increase employment and, indeed, increase wages, is to engage in company tax cuts. That was Labor policy and Labor narrative, and they know it to be the truth, and yet, sadly, they come into this place with cheap politics, willing people to remain unemployed and to remain on lower wages by denying company tax cuts.

The simple fact is that company tax cuts do translate into lower cost items and higher wages, and that, of course, increases the budget capacity of the families of our fellow Australians. The Labor Party knew that; the Liberal Party knows that. Labor tries to implement it; we support them. We seek another tranche—what do Labor do? Hypocritically oppose it, like they opposed their own budget cuts in this place. The only true economic managers are the coalition. (Time expired)

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Isn't it pathetic? Senator Abetz coming here, trying to lecture Labor about good economics. A man who was in here cutting wages for workers for his whole career: attacking working people, attacking penalty rates and looking after the big end of town. And he continues to look after the big end of town—$17 billion of tax cuts to the banks. That's the priority for Senator Abetz and that's the priority for the coalition.

Let's talk about previous treasurers. Treasurer Swan, the Treasurer who actually brought us through the global financial crisis. Treasurer Swan, who actually did the timely, targeted and temporary stimulus that was recognised around the world as one of the best, if not the best, responses—the best response!—to the global financial crisis ever.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you voting for him, Douggie?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And we've got people sitting across here, like Senator Birmingham, yap-yap-yapping away. Senator Birmingham actually came here with some progressive politics, arguing that he was a progressive. And what did we see? Someone who cuts funds for education and who has no capacity to look after the skills and needs of the Australian workforce—a failed minister and a failed politician, only interested in looking after the big end of town.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's crap, Douggie, and you know it!

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're only interested in looking after your mates, with over $2½ million to the former Family First senator on a rorted position, put forward by you. Don't you lecture us about looking after public money! Don't you lecture us about the Labor Party's position! Wayne Swan saved 115,000 jobs in this country.

You never hear the coalition talk about the global financial crisis. They try to pretend that it never happened! Well, there was a global financial crisis, and it was Wayne Swan that brought us through that global financial crisis. It was Paul Keating who turned this place around, turned this country around, opened this country up and modernised the economy—something that the coalition will never do. All the coalition want to do is hand $80 billion in tax cuts to big business and argue that that is their position to create jobs. It is absolute nonsense. Not even the Business Council of Australia, who are going to be the recipients of this, can tell a Senate committee where the jobs would come from and where the increase in wages would come from.

Nowhere in the world has this economic rationalist approach actually worked. Trickle-down economics doesn't work. Trickle-down economics is simply a myth and it's a myth that this mob, this rabble of a government, this deteriorating government and this government that's only interested in fighting each other, not looking after education and health for working people in this country. It's a desperate government, a pathetic government—so that's their answer. Look at their economic position. They started off under former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, and it was austerity budgets and cutting pensions. They actually wanted to change the indexation on the pension that would have cost pensioners $80 a week over a decade. They cut funding for health in Indigenous communities. They actually wanted young people in this country to have no income for six months if they were unemployed.

They are a pathetic lot, an absolutely pathetic government and a government whose economic position was they would increase the GST. That lasted about a week. Then their next economic position was to say to the states that they could then tax. That lasted a few days. And their latest one is trickle-down economics. Because the banks look after this mob; they are running a protection racket for the banks. They are pathetic. (Time expired)

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Labor Party are starting to sound increasingly desperate in their arguments around this matter. I have to say the shrill presentation that we just heard from Senator Cameron is sounding desperate, and there is nobody on this side who will be lectured to by the Labor Party on economic management. I think Senator Abetz was right to note that the only economic manager that the Labor Party were prepared to quote in their questions in question time today was former Treasurer Peter Costello. They can't find one of their own to quote. Perhaps they have an obsession with Treasurers from this side of the House—I'm not sure—but they could not find anybody else to quote.

Let's not forget that, when the Labor Party came to government in 2007, there was zero debt. There was money in the bank. Over the following six years they increased debt levels. They spent without constraint. I have to say I was proud to be in this chamber to vote against the second tranche of spending that was announced during the GFC. And I will acknowledge there was a GFC; I think it is only reasonable. We supported the first tranche of spending for the GFC, but we didn't support the second tranche of spending. Unlike Senator Cameron, I won't acknowledge that it was spent wisely, because it was spent on things like pink batts, a program that still has impacts in the economy. It was spent on things like overpriced school halls, which were so overpriced that the building economists who measure cost spending wouldn't even include any of those projects in their national cost spending tables. There were the $900 cheques that went to dead people. So the Labor Party cannot lecture us on economic management.

They then embedded spending at growth rates of somewhere like 3.7 per cent per annum over the forward estimates. Then, when this government came into place in 2013 and attempted to restrain the spending, the Labor Party with the Greens have voted against us at every single turn. As Senator Abetz said, even though they took $5 billion worth of savings to the 2013 election, they then voted against those same savings following the 2013 election. How can the Labor Party, in any good conscience, lecture the coalition on good economic management? We have constrained the growth in spending from 3.7 per cent, which we inherited from Labor, to 1.9 per cent over the forward estimates. We have constrained the debt that was projected to reach $1 trillion when we came to government to the figure of about $640 billion, where it stands today. How can the Labor Party, in any good conscience, come in here and try to claim to be good economic managers? We remember promise after promise from Wayne Swan that there would be a surplus, to the extent it became a running joke—that the Treasurer of this country, every time he got to his feet, promised a surplus.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When are you going to get to your surplus?

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You wait and watch tonight, Senator. We won't be lectured by Labor on economic management because everybody knows that Labor can't manage the economy. Go out into the community and watch people's heads nod as you make that statement, because people understand that. They know that the coalition has to be brought back to government to bring things under control, because the Labor Party just cannot restrain their spending and they're going into this next election promising $200 billion of increased taxes into the economy. They will not be constrained in their spending and they've already acknowledged that they won't be prepared to constrain their spending growth as the government has committed to do, so they have no credibility in this space. Taxpayers know that the Labor Party cannot get enough of their money. They cannot take enough of it. They think they can spend it better than they can and they will promise more and more taxes. So, coming into the next election, there is one thing that is sure—you will pay more tax under Labor than you will under the coalition.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The journalist Michael Kinsley said that a gaffe is when the politician tells some obvious truth he isn't supposed to say. Well, Peter Costello may no longer be a parliamentary representative for the Liberal Party, but he has said an obvious truth that the government would rather he had not said out loud. They're running all over the shop this afternoon trying to avoid the consequences. What did he say? He told 7.30 that he thinks a priority for the modern Liberal Party ought to be the 'forgotten people', and he defined those as the people who earn more than $200,000 a year. He's worried about the people on six figures, and principally those people on six figures with a '2' at the front of them. He's revealed the truth, actually, about the modern Liberal Party. It's one that they struggle to conceal, but he's belled the cat. They pretend to stand for everyone but, when it really comes down to it, they are irretrievably and entirely for the very, very wealthy. The government cry poor every time they are asked to hand out money to support people on low- and middle-incomes. They cry poor except when it comes to handing out money to their friends.

What about the things the government say we can't afford and the community can't have? We can't have proper investment in schools. We can't have a reasonable investment in public hospitals so that when you go to the emergency department you can get the services you need right away. They're not willing really to contemplate proper tax cuts for low- and middle-income Australians; indeed, until very recently, they were proposing a giant tax hike for people on incomes between $20,000 and $87,000 a year. They say we can't afford to invest in our vocational education system, even though we know that the economy is changing so quickly that people will need to retrain again and again in their careers. They weren't able to properly fund ASIC—the regulator that's supposed to oversee the banking system—to help prevent the financial scandals and crimes that are coming to light, thanks to the royal commission they said was too expensive and would be a waste of money. They say we can't afford to continue an energy supplement for pensioners. That is something they confirmed today in the chamber. They say that we can't afford an age pension, a pension to support Australians who worked all their lives. They say we can't have one of those unless we defer its commencement until the age of 70.

It's really instructive to compare that list with the list of things that the government has demonstrated it is willing to fund, the things it says we can afford within its budget constraint. We can apparently afford tax relief for the banks—big-time tax relief. We can apparently contemplate tax cuts for high-income earners. Unbelievably and in an unprecedented way, it's apparent we can afford a slush fund for coalmines. That's something we can afford; Senator Canavan is extremely enthusiastic about it. We can afford to continue tax arrangements that allow negative gearing and capital gains tax arrangements that support investors in the property sector and penalise first home buyers and people who intend to occupy the homes that they buy. Apparently we can afford $8 billion a year in tax credits for the wealthiest 20 per cent of households, those people who have carefully structured their share portfolios to ensure they benefit from that particular arrangement.

In other words, when it wants to, this government can find money, but it finds money for its friends. That's what Peter Costello was honest enough to say when he spoke about Menzies's 'forgotten people'. It's very clear who he thinks the priority is. He thinks the priority is those people that earn six-figure salaries. It's actually time for the government to admit that it's not really committed to budget repair at all. That's not its objective. The debt and deficit crisis was a talking point and a talking point alone for the former Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, and Prime Minister Turnbull is no different. If this government was serious about the deficit, then they would look at it the way that Labor has. They would not just be talking about slashing services; they would be looking at changes that make the tax system fairer, whilst raising the necessary revenue, the revenue that we need to deliver the services that the community expects.

Question agreed to.