Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to continue my remarks. I refer colleagues to the tabled second reading speech from when this bill was introduced. I want to briefly highlight from that contribution that it has been Labor Party policy to actually advance a debt ceiling. It was the earlier incarnation of this coalition government that abolished the debt ceiling altogether. Labor, I note, voted against that repeal, and I appeal to them again to support this bill. Indeed, this Senate has actually passed a motion which said:

… expresses its in-principle support for legislative measures that will help chart a pathway to budget surplus achieved by reducing spending and waste, not by increasing taxes.

They're very simple premises. Government should cut its spending rather than foist its extravagant ways on and become a burden to the taxpayers of Australia.

The Conservatives party maintains a debt clock on its website. It is usually the province of a right-of-centre opposition to maintain a debt clock against the wastefulness, extravagance and inefficiencies of a centre-left government. I regret that now it is up to the Conservatives party to maintain a debt clock against a coalition government, those who are historically very proud of their economic track record. Well, their economic track record, I regret to say, is as bad—or slightly worse or slightly better—than that of those on the other side. There is no difference between the two—the red party and the blue party—except, in this instance, Labor are actually on the record as saying they believe in a debt ceiling such that permission needs to be sought from the parliament before you further jeopardise the economic futures of our children and our grandchildren.

Let's remember how this came about. The abolition of the debt ceiling happened when a coalition government teamed up with the Greens. That Green-blue alliance threw it all out the door and said: 'Trust us. It'll be okay.' I'm telling you that it's not okay. We're $530 billion-plus in the hole. Our government debt clock is ticking away—$488 in additional debt every single second. And there's another $561 every single second in interest on the debt that's already been accumulated. Every single second, the economic future of our children is going down the gurgler.

The total interest on the debt today is around $17 billion. That's $17 billion in interest payments every single year. Imagine what you could do with that. Imagine what you could do with $17 billion. You could build seven brand-new, state-of-the-art public hospitals every single year. Let's have a look at this for a second. You could probably do it a bit more efficiently, but I'm basing it on the fact that, in South Australia, the new Royal Adelaide Hospital cost $2.3 billion to build. So we could build seven of those every single year and deal with a health crisis. But no. Instead we've decided to rack up $530 billion-odd worth of debt to pay $17 billion worth of interest. What have we got to show for it? We've got some sharper pencils and not much else.

Or, if you don't want to build new hospitals but you recognise that there is an electricity crisis that needs to be dealt with, you could tip that money into building eight new 1,000-megawatt, high-efficiency, low-emissions coal-fired power plants. It would cost about $2.2 billion. You could do that every single year. Not only would you provide a fertile environment for our coalmines and our coalminers and their jobs; you would provide every Australian with the lowest cost electricity of almost anywhere in the world.

The tragedy of it is that it's all achievable. It would all be achievable if the last decade of wasteful government expenditure had not existed. Maybe if back in those days when they were throwing money around like confetti under Prime Minister Kevin Rudd—and it hasn't improved much since then—instead of pursuing school halls and installing them in schools that have since closed, pushing pink batts insulation programs or borrowing money to send $900 cheques to dead people and people living overseas there could have been some nation-building project like taking the abundance of water from the north of Australia and building a pipeline or building some dams and they could have drought-proofed sections of this country. They could have improved the prospects and they wouldn't be facing the crisis they are facing in New South Wales today. All of those things may have been possible. But no. Instead government chose the expediency of clocking up bills they knew they would never be asked to repay.

I think that is the greatest moral challenge of our time. How can we, today, expect to sustain and prop up our lifestyles and the grotesque spending from an engorged government that is delivering worse outcomes for the people of Australia whilst indebting future generations?

And it's compounding the problem by this immigration Ponzi scheme, where we go, 'Oh, my goodness. We've got an ageing population. We've got these debts. What are we going to do? Let's truck a whole bunch of people in here and keep the whole merry-go-round going.'

It's time to take stock. It's time to take some accountability. I note that the conservatives have said, 'We need to clean up Canberra,' and that our proposal is to suspend or freeze pay increases for politicians and senior public servants. Until they can deliver the promises they say they will, in respect to surpluses, until they're held to account for that, the promises will go unheeded. We've heard this from the greatest Treasurer in the world—apparently—Mr Wayne Swan, who said a surplus was just around the corner. Mr Bowen said much the same thing. Mr Hockey said much the same thing, and so on and on and on we go. One coalition frontbencher said, 'Imagine, under the current trajectory, if we run a $7 billion surplus every single year for the next 100 years, maybe, just maybe, we'll be able to pay off the debt that's already planned.' It's an extraordinary and shameful indictment on everyone in this place who keeps voting to borrow money to throw at problems where money is not the issue. It is the effectiveness of programs.

I want to reflect on one of those things that happened in this place. It was in respect to the education funding bill. Education funding hasn't been working for the Australian people, because the literacy and numeracy rates of our students have been declining. The more money that's thrown at it, the worse it gets. We've got university students who are getting into teaching degrees with ATARs of 17, the minister said on television yesterday. And more money is being thrown into these less productive and respected outcomes than ever before. The government put forward a bill for $18½ billion to be thrown into education, most of which was not accounted for in the future estimates, so it's just another promise—$18 billion. When asked, 'What are the accountability measures that will come out of it? What will be the outcomes? How will they be measured?' the answer was, 'We'll get to that in a short time.'

The indictment is not just on the Labor opposition and the coalition government. It goes to the crossbench as well. The crossbench all want their pound of flesh and to, somehow, stamp their authority over the government. Their desire was not for increased accountability or transparency; it was to borrow another $5 billion—$5 billion, as if it was just money to buy some fish and chips—to add to the unaccountable and unfunded $18 billion promise from the government. So I look around this chamber and go, 'Where are the voices of prudence, of common sense, of fiscal responsibility?' They seem to have been abandoned. And it's to the detriment of our country. Right around the world, we see governments doing the same thing.

I hear justification from many in the government sphere or the opposition that Australia is somehow winning last place in the ugly fiscal contest. That's not good enough. We don't want to be in the ugly fiscal contest. We want to be in the beautiful fiscal contest—the country which runs surpluses, which doesn't have national debt, where our government is an ally of the people and the next generation is the custodian of all that makes this country great, rather than the enemy and the opponent of our children and our grandchildren. They—and, ipso facto, all of us—are doing the next generation a massive disservice. It is a disservice because we are not prepared to live within our means today, and we're expecting the next generation and the one after that and the one after that to pay our bills.

This has been noted by very many people who can remove themselves from the demands or pressures of political life. It seems something happens in this place when you come up here and go, 'It seems like a good idea,' in this building, even though it doesn't pass the common-sense test. If you go out to the Australian people and ask them, 'Do you really think it's wise for a government to give $440-odd billion to an organisation without a strong track record of success, without a tender process and without anyone really understanding how and why that came about?' most people who live in the real world say, 'No, that's not clever at all.' And yet we've got the cabinet and the government saying that they can do that with the Great Barrier Reef Foundation. They're still a little coy about it all, but it's $440-odd million that has been borrowed. Wouldn't it be better to put that money into repaying debt? What about the fact that the government can give $440-odd million to a foundation with half-a-dozen employees, with little scrutiny and with very little justification, and yet it has successfully ignored the plight of farmers for many, many years?

Some in this place—one of them was former senator Bill Heffernan—have talked about the damages and dangers of drought in New South Wales for a very long time. And yet, because it wasn't a crisis, it went unheeded. Now, when it is a crisis and when things could have been done earlier in the piece, the government throws $190 million into drought relief. That's $443 million, or $444 million, in a non-tender process to, really, an unknown group, versus $190 million in crisis drought relief.

On the front page of The Australian today it states there is $22.5 billion in pork-barrelling in electorates. That's only what The Australian has dug up. It's on both sides of politics. Should the government really be tipping borrowed money into building mini golf courses to satisfy Labor's Waste Watch spokesman? I mean, if he was truly a former Waste Watch spokesman, he should have said, 'We don't want to waste the money on a mini golf course. Let that be done by the private sector.'

What about a second-hand ute with a Santa sleigh on the back? That's a questionable use of taxpayers' money as well. At least Mr Kevin Rudd got a ute from his mate and it didn't cost the taxpayers any money. Couldn't we have done that again? What about dog parks? Is it really within the purview of this federal parliament to be funding dog parks? What about the cat lovers of the world? I love the dog parks, but it's not the responsibility of the federal government to be doing it. Leave it to the local councils. Leave it to state governments, if that's all they want to do. What about an extension of a model railway, or a children's water frog slide? We are getting into the inane here. We are here to be custodians of the children's responsibility for the future and we're building them water slides. It's akin to Marie Antoinette saying, 'Let them eat cake'—'What do we care? Let's entertain them. Let's put some bread and circuses there so that we can distract them with their water slides whilst we're selling out their futures.' Well, it's time to have that change.

We've got $500-plus billion in debt. There is no genuine or credible plan to repay this money. We have been using this money to prop up the egos of politicians, to prop up public servants, for pork-barrelling in marginal electorates and to prop up experimental political schemes that have failed. But, as justification for their failure, they use: 'There's not enough money being tipped into it.' It's not that at all. There's plenty of money. It's just that it has got to be applied in a prudent and responsible manner. In fact, you can make the case that you can achieve more by having government do less. Part of coming up to Canberra after a long winter break is the frustration of knowing the damage that is going to be done in this place as the boondoggles and the lack of accountability and responsibility continue to be advanced. We're seeing it. There is rewarding of political mates. We're seeing it where everyone wants a plaque to say, 'This is what I've achieved.' Why don't we have an honour board for those who are actually interested in getting our country back in the black, back on the right track: re-adopting the process of running surpluses and not throwing money at every demanding cause and every sob story? The sob stories will only get worse and only get bigger in the decades ahead, because we are on an unsustainable path. If we cannot sustain our financial and economic sustainability—or profitability—if we cannot sustain our way of life in this country, and if we cannot sustain the quality, the values and the principles upon which this country was built, then we might as well all give up.

You've got to ask yourself what you are doing here. If our commitment is to the 'now' generation, to the 'me' generation, with no thought to the future or to our responsibilities—which are to not lumber our children and our grandchildren, and possibly their children and grandchildren too, with paying back our failures today—then we have failed. And, unfortunately, I regret to say, we are failing. We're failing them because there is a lack of will and a lack of commitment—and it is, as I pointed out, from both the major parties. They'll pay lip service to it, but they don't like it. They'll pay lip service to saying, 'We're going to do this,' and, 'We're going to cut spending. We're going to make government more efficient. We're going to target our money in a more effective manner.' And yet their actions undermine those very claims.

That's why Australians are casting their eyes around the place. They're looking for alternatives—some of those alternatives are healthier than others, I will say—because they no longer believe what politicians are going to tell them. They no longer believe that what we're doing up here is acting in their interests; they think it's acting in our interests. And, unfortunately, I think they're right: political expediency is the order of the day. But we've got to change that. We've got to make the order of the day our responsibility to those that will come after us. And the greatest thing we can do is to prevent them from having to pay our debts of today. That is the great moral challenge of our time, and every member in this place needs to put their hand up and say they are committed to doing it. One way in which you can do that is to invoke a debt ceiling so that there is not a blank cheque for government, because you know that, when there is a blank cheque for government, they just keep adding zeros and zeros and zeros to the cheques that they write.

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

It's always great to listen to Senator Bernardi, and it's great to follow him in this debate. I'd have to say that a lot of what Senator Bernardi has said I have no dispute with at all, and I think many on this side of parliament would agree with much of what Senator Bernardi said.

He talks about an honour board for those who have done something about reducing debt and getting the finances back into action. Of course, the first nominee for that would be Mr Scott Morrison, who has achieved that sort of approach to Australia's economy. I very much agreed with Senator Bernardi when he said that the coalition government was very proud of its economic track record. We are.

Senator Bernardi and I were both members of a government some years ago that actually paid off debt, that actually ran the books at a surplus. For many years, the Howard government managed the books of the country so that we were able to put aside credits. We had surpluses for several years and, when we left office in 2007, there was $60 billion in the bank—$60 billion in credit, in the piggy bank. And that was as a result of good work by the coalition government, of which both Senator Bernardi and I were part in those days.

Had we stayed in government, that financial management would have continued and the surplus of $60 billion would have grown. But, unfortunately, the people of Australia elected Mr Rudd, with a lot of promises and a lot of excitement. We then saw the country's finances dip into almost financial ruin. We saw deficits that, as Senator Bernardi rightly said, rose every year under Treasurer Wayne Swan, supposedly the world's greatest Treasurer. Those of us who were around then will recall that each budget Mr Swan would promise that in the next year we'd be moving into surplus, if not the year after. Of course, we never did. Each year the budget deficit went up. So that's why I think we should nominate Mr Scott Morrison, our current Treasurer, for this honour board that Senator Bernardi talks about.

In 2017-18, the deficit has been reduced to $18.2 billion, and next year it will be reduced to $14.5 billion. That's the smallest deficit since surpluses were delivered back under the time of the Howard government. The budget is forecast to return to balance in 2019-20 at $2.2 billion, increasing the projected surplus to $11 billion in 2020-21 and $16.6 billion in 2021-22. They're not just words. We've shown over the last few budgets that we can bring down Labor's deficit, and we estimate that we will continue back to the old Howard government days of having surpluses and putting money aside in the piggy bank.

Senator Bernardi mentioned just a few programs of what could be done and what couldn't be done. But, of course, this government has done the work and not just talked about it. It has not just made fine speeches but actually done the work. In the Labor years we saw those surpluses I mentioned that the Howard government had accumulated evaporate into deficits, with Australia's gross debt increasing at an average rate of 33.9 per cent a year. If the coalition government, when it took office, had continued to build on that debt at those levels, the gross national debt would currently have reached $1 trillion. But the Turnbull government is acting to ensure Australia's financial sustainability by returning the budget to balance in 2019-20 and tackling rising debt.

Since the coalition came into government we've acted to cut growth in our gross debt by over 75 per cent to less than eight per cent in the last budget. So we've turned the corner on debt, with net debt expected to peak this year at 18.6 per cent of GDP and, over the forward estimates, net debt is expected to decline by over $30 billion to be at about 3.8 per cent of GDP in 2028-29. For the first time in many years the government no longer needs to borrow to pay for everyday expenses. Senator Bernardi mentioned rightly that under the Labor government we were actually borrowing money just to run the normal functions of government and we were actually borrowing money to pay interest on the money that the Labor Party government had borrowed previously.

Important programs, such as Medicare and NDIS, and funding for medicines, schools and hospitals are all essentials for Australia and Australians rely upon them. That's why the coalition government is ensuring they are funded sustainably and not through borrowing. Government borrowing is instead funding productive investments in priority infrastructure and upgrading our defence forecasts. That is, of course, an appropriate use of borrowed money: for infrastructure that makes our country more productive, and for defence projects that not only keep Australia safe but are building a substantial defence materiel industry in this country—something Labor talked about for six years and did absolutely nothing about. Under the coalition government—the Turnbull government—that defence industry manufacturing is ramping up, and we will have a defence industry shipbuilding program in place in this country for the first time for a long time. This is all about creating jobs, strengthening the economy and ensuring Australia remains internationally competitive.

Labor are shameless and hypocritical when it comes to debt. Mr Shorten should clearly set out which infrastructure projects and major defence projects he would scrap if elected. He should also come clean on whether he would draw down on the Future Fund early—a decision which could only drive up debt for future generations of taxpayers. Mr Shorten is promising the world to everybody but says he's going to make cuts to pay for it. We know, because he is a Labor leader, that he's not to be believed. If he is serious about it, he should say which of the infrastructure projects he is going to cut. Is it the Pacific Highway? Is it the Bruce Highway? Is it major bridges that are being built? Is it defence expenditure? Which are the projects that Mr Shorten would cut to fund the extravagant promises that he is already making? He also should clarify whether he would draw down from the Future Fund. That, of course, would be disastrous for this country.

It's important to refute Senator Bernardi's claims in relation to the Great Barrier Reef. It used to be called one of the Seven Wonders of the World. It is still a magnificent spectacle. It's a magnificent living organism. It's something that has been very, very carefully managed by the Australian government, particularly coalition governments, since it was first declared a marine park by a Liberal government several decades ago. We have a commitment to ensure not only that the Barrier Reef remains well managed but that those international players, in their own somewhat benighted approaches to these things, who can affect tourists who come to the reef—not the reef, I might say—believe that the Australian government is doing things. We've committed substantial money to things like the crown of thorns starfish, research and the green zones. The Australian Institute of Marine Science—again, something that was set up by a Liberal government in the past—does wonderful work on the Barrier Reef. Those who would scoff are obviously from Sydney; they've probably never even been to the Barrier Reef. I, who live next to it, know that the Australian Institute of Marine Science does a wonderful job in managing all of our marine areas and particularly the Great Barrier Reef.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, over many years, has managed the reef very well. The lies by the Greens political party and some in the Labor Party that the reef is dying are simply that: lies. Yet, regrettably, the message from the Greens political party, the Australian Conservation Foundation and others that the reef is dead has been relayed around the world. This has meant that some European and North American tourists are not now coming to Australia, because they believe the lies of the Greens political party that the reef is dead. But I can take anyone to most parts of the reef and show that it is still a wonderful asset that Australia has and that it is being very, very well managed. My only regret is that there are some in Australia who continue, in a very treacherous way, to undermine Australia and its industries and the thousands and thousands of people who rely on the Barrier Reef for their living. These treacherous people within Australia will continue to tell lies about the Barrier Reef, when the government is clear—and always has been very clear—in its approach to protecting the Barrier Reef.

What I'm saying is not just said by me, of course. In my drawer here I have a lovely brochure put out by one of the marine conservation groups. I can't put my hand on it just now, but I have mentioned it in the past. A group of marine science and conservation groups—the more sensible ones—put out a very glossy brochure congratulating Liberal governments over the years on what they have done for our marine environment in Australia. The money that's recently been allocated to the Barrier Reef is a continuation of that. The only criticism I've received about those substantial investments in the Barrier Reef has been from people who live up there who have said to me, 'Ian, why are we spending this money, because the reef's pretty good as it is?' These are people who go out there every day of the week. Notwithstanding that, there are always things we can improve and there is always additional science we can fund.

I'm pleased to say that the Australian Institute of Marine Science and James Cook University in Townsville and Cairns are continuing to do work looking at practical things like seeing whether genetic modification would help reefs in Queensland to be like those in the warmer waters of the Red Sea, where corals abound but in very much warmer waters. There has to be work done on why corals can live in the warmer waters of the Red Sea but don't do so well in the Coral Sea—although evidence given to a committee that Senator Whish-Wilson chaired, from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, actually debunked the suggestion that the waters were warming in the Coral Sea. The evidence is on Hansard from a scientist from GBRMPA saying that the waters in the last two years have in fact been one degree colder than in the previous year. The money that we spend on the Barrier Reef is important for all Australians.

Senator Bernardi also mentioned that the coalition had ignored the plight of farmers. Well, he knows—he was a member of the coalition for many years—that this is a government which understands that farmers are the people who feed and clothe Australia, and not only Australia but the world, and we have always recognised the wonderful job that our farmers do within Australia and with the goods they export to feed and clothe the world. We are very conscious about droughts. Again as Senator Bernardi knows, and as the coalition and Mr Turnbull have recently demonstrated, where money is needed it will be provided. We will find it. Indeed, with the last $190 million, I think the Prime Minister said that, if more money were needed, more money would be made available.

Senator Bernardi did make a good point—that, if we had some more dams, if we had some better management of the huge amount of water that falls, particularly in Northern Australia, then some of the drought issues could be ameliorated. Senator Bernardi would know that the Turnbull government have done water feasibility studies in many parts of Australia, but I'll talk about Queensland. We've proposed the Rookwood Weir, with a feasibility study on the Hells Gates dam outside Townsville and Charters Towers, on the Burdekin River. We've proposed the Urannah Dam and the Nullinga Dam, feasibility studies being at Cave Hill and Big Rocks, on the Burdekin River near Charters Towers. All of those the Commonwealth has promoted, with considerable finance to those feasibility studies.

Unfortunately, under the Constitution, only state governments can do work on dams and on rivers and streams. So, whilst we can fund them and whilst we can urge, it needs a state government to do it, and regrettably in Queensland we have a Labor government that's kept in power by the Greens political party, which just finds dams anathema. Labor Party people agree that they should be built, but they haven't got the courage to stand up to the Greens political party, which keeps the Queensland Labor government in power. So we don't have any dams in Queensland. And, as much as the federal government can continue to promote and offer to pay for weirs and dams, until the Queensland government makes the decision, there's little that can be done. But I agree with Senator Bernardi: we should be doing more of that and, in that way, trying to droughtproof the country in these difficult times.

Whilst I understand the sentiments of Senator Bernardi's bill, the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment (Debt Ceiling) Bill 2018, it's not one that really needs attention at this time, because the Commonwealth government, the current government, the Turnbull government, is doing what Senator Bernardi seeks. We are reducing government waste—expenditure on programs that Labor just threw cash at like confetti. In the Labor days, remember the batts in the ceiling? That wasn't planned at all. In fact, they put in batts that made houses catch on fire and indeed killed a couple of workers. Remember the school halls program? It wouldn't have been a bad program except that it wasn't managed, and the rip-offs that occurred in the construction of many of those school halls are legend. So we've cut back on wasteful expenditure.

We can now do the current work of government without borrowing, and that's why, of course, we have retained our AAA credit rating as a government from all three major credit-rating agencies, making Australia one of only 10 countries in the world to have that AAA credit rating. You don't get that sort of rating if the rating agencies think that the economy is mismanaged or that we need debt ceilings. They are looking at the actions of the Turnbull government. Actions always speak louder than words. We've reduced deficits in the last couple of budgets, and we're projected, easily, to return to surplus the year after next.

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

What can you say when you're following Senator Bernardi and Senator Macdonald? I see Senator Macdonald leaving the chamber. No wonder the electorate up in North Queensland dumped Senator Macdonald—after that diatribe and load of nonsense that he's just gone through. I think what Senator Bernardi has outlined here is the division amongst conservative forces in this country. This is simply a stunt from Senator Bernardi. This is about Senator Bernardi trying to promote the Australian Conservatives over the coalition government. Senator Bernardi nods. Well, you know; that's right. This is simply a stunt. It's about creating more division and more problems for this coalition government.

Senator Bernardi, this government doesn't need any help from you to get itself into trouble. This government doesn't need any help from you to demonstrate that it's divided and is an absolute rabble of a government. But you've done that. I can understand why you're doing that. But this is a stunt. The irony is that you, Senator Bernardi, supported putting a cap on debt in the first place. And this is debt that, for the first time in Australia's history, has crashed through the half-a-trillion-dollar mark.

This is a government who self-proclaim that they are great economic managers, but they are always amongst the worst economic managers that ever came to place in this country. Debt is going to stay above half a trillion dollars all the way across the medium term in this country. The debt has gone through the roof under the coalition's watch, under former Prime Minister Tony Abbott and current Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. The debt has gone through the roof. We don't see any mention of the budget deficit now from the government, do we? When they were in opposition all they wanted to do was talk about budget deficits. Over the last financial year the budget deficit has become six times larger than the government predicted in their first infamous 2014 budget. And we all remember the 2014 budget, don't we? It was the budget where they tried to increase the problems for pensioners in this country. They tried to force young people in this country to survive for six months without any support. The 2014 budget cut expenditure on education, cut expenditure on health and cut expenditure on housing and homelessness. It was a disaster of a budget. That's how this government came to power, with an austerity budget.

We hear them warbling on about their great economic management. Well, let's look at their economic management over this period of time. Firstly, there was the austerity budget. That was the first position that they took—the one that I've just outlined. Everybody remembers that first Abbott budget. The current Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, said he supported every aspect of the budget. He said to an interviewer, 'You ask me about any aspect of that budget and I'll support it.' That's the hypocrisy of Prime Minister Turnbull. And yet, when he knifed Prime Minister Abbott in the back, he said that his great economic position would be to increase the GST, the goods and services tax. That's what came from Malcolm Turnbull: he would increase the GST, which would impact more on families than the Prime Minister's rich mates at Point Piper. He would hammer ordinary Australian workers by increasing the GST. That lasted about a week, and then the Prime Minister was forced to pull that off because no-one was going to support it. That was his first attempt to change economic direction and it didn't last longer than a week. His next great economic position was to hand taxing powers to the states. He was going to move the government out of taxing and hand taxing powers to the states. That might have lasted about two days and then he had to ignominiously retreat from that position.

Where are we now with this government? Senator Macdonald says they're such great economic managers. What's the latest position? Handing $80 billion to big business and $17 billion to the banks, with the hope that trickle-down economics will mean that working people in this country get a pay increase. What a load of nonsense. I just cannot stomach those senators across on the other side when they get up and talk about economic management when they have been such failures over so many years in economic management. They have been absolutely hopeless. The budget deficit is six times larger than when they came to government—double the amount the government first predicted. Debt and deficit levels have got to where they are under this government, and, until only recently, Senator Bernardi was a member of this government. Let's not forget what happened in December 2013. The government did a deal with the Greens—those champions of fiscal responsibility—to abolish the previous cap on debt. And who voted to support this deal with the Greens? None other than Senator Bernardi. So we won't be taking any lectures from him or from Senator Macdonald on fiscal rectitude, just like the arbitrary tax cap that this government has seen fit to put into policy. What will this actually achieve?

Let's be clear. Unlike the government, which has its big-business tax cuts and big-income tax cuts that largely benefit high-income earners out in the never-never, Labor has a proper plan to get the budget back to a sustainable footing. Through our plans to reform negative gearing and capital gains tax, reform discretionary trusts, cap deductions on managing tax affairs, deal with multinational tax reform and reform dividend imputation, we are able to fund essential services that ordinary families in this country need so badly. We will fund decent education funding and decent health funding. We're the ones that'll do that. We're the ones that are looking after housing and homelessness. We're the ones that are saying we will invest in TAFE to give working-class kids in this country an opportunity to get an education and get a job. It's Labor that are the people that are taking the hard decisions, and doing the hard yards on economic decisions in this country—not the nonsense we heard from Senator Macdonald. Is it any wonder that Senator Macdonald's own people in Queensland wouldn't support him for another term in this parliament? He got dumped. And we just saw the reason he got dumped—his nonsense, his simply parroting the rubbish that he parrots every time he's in here.

Labor has been accused here of being bad economic managers. Let me tell you: go back to what the International Monetary Fund said only a few years ago. This is not some left-wing mob out there supporting the Labor Party; this is the International Monetary Fund. It identified only two periods of what it described as 'fiscal profligacy'—that means spending badly and not looking after the money and the tax that comes in. Guess when those two periods of fiscal profligacy were? They were under former Prime Minister John Howard. This is from the International Monetary Fund. Senator Bernardi was part of that government and Senator Macdonald was part of that government.

So when the IMF said there were two times in recent years when there had been problems with government spending, they were under John Howard and, also, the worst Treasurer we've ever had—the weakest Treasurer we've ever had—Peter Costello. They were under Howard and Costello. They were the ones that were pushing the bad economic decisions. The first one was in 2003, at the start of the mining boom, when John Howard splashed money about as if there was no tomorrow. And then, in the final years in office, between 2005 and 2007, former Prime Minister John Howard—along with former Treasurer Peter Costello—in an absolute panic to try and hold on to government, splashed money around as if there was no tomorrow. The IMF saw this, and the IMF said that those were the two eras when there was absolute fiscal incompetence in this country. It was when Senator Bernardi was part of the Howard government and when Senator Macdonald was part of the Howard government. That's when the nonsense went on in this country. That's when we didn't invest for the future. That's when we didn't put in for proper education and health funding—under the Howard-Costello government, in which Senator Macdonald and Senator Bernardi were players. Senator Macdonald was a minister in that government.

The economists from the IMF's fiscal affairs department found the only other year of profligate spending during the past six decades took place during the conservative government of Robert Menzies. If you want to look at fiscal profligacy, if you want to look at governments that can't look after the community, if you want to look at governments that just throw the money around, look at John Howard and Robert Menzies. They're the ones that have done all the damage to the economy. It was John Howard and Peter Costello who locked in the deficit for this country for years to come because they had no idea what was good for the country. They had no idea how to handle public funds. All they wanted to do was save their own necks. And I can tell you, Senator Bernardi, you know what's going to happen; the public do not want these tax cuts to big business and, if anyone were listening, they would back off. But we'll get Senator Cormann saying these tax cuts to big business will continue regardless of the effects they might have on the economy.

We certainly know one effect it won't have: it won't increase the wages of working-class Australians in this country. We know that trickle-down economics doesn't work. We know that the Prime Minister and Senator Cormann want to continue to try to get these cuts for their big-business mates. But we know that that won't go through the Senate. We're pretty confident that that won't go through the Senate. So I'll tell you what's going to happen after it doesn't go through the Senate. All this argument about fiscal prudence and looking after public money will disappear when the Prime Minister and Senator Cormann set about handing out handouts to every pressure group in the country. We know that's what's going to happen. They're going to do exactly the same that John Howard did when he was trying to stay in office. They will throw the cash around, and let's hear what Senator Bernardi says about that when that starts to happen.

The Turnbull government in panic will throw the cash around and try to buy their way back into office, but I think the Australian public are well aware that this government has absolutely no capacity to look after working families in this country. The only people they want to look after are themselves, and this Prime Minister is a prime example of that. He will say anything and he will do anything to try to maintain his position of power and privilege as the Prime Minister of this country. If only he could use the power and privilege of prime ministership in this country to benefit working families. But he can't do that, because he is under control. He is controlled by the worst elements of the National Party and the worst elements of the Liberal Party. His new favourite, Senator Pauline Hanson, controls the economic future of this government.

What an absolute disgrace. What a position we find ourselves in, with one of the weakest prime ministers this country has ever seen, with a Treasurer—Scott Morrison—who doesn't know what he's going to do next, with no plan B other than splashing money around as they did in the past to try to buy themselves back into power. That's exactly the position you will find with this government. There's no argument about that. We know what's being geared up for and we know that's what's going to happen.

This is a government with no economic credibility. It's got no social credibility either. It's got no credibility when it comes to looking after working people that are doing it tough, workers facing wage stagnation, workers battling to pay their bills. Look at what's happening in terms of climate change policy in this country. What an absolute nonsense it has been from this government. They're the ones that have stopped any certainty taking place in this country for investment. For as long as this coalition government have been in government, there has never been investment certainty. With all the right-wing nut jobs sitting on the other side of this parliament coming after—

Government Senator:

A government senator interjecting—

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

You're getting a bit testy!

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order: after the statement by the President this morning that another senator referring to his opponents as 'right-wing nut jobs' is completely unparliamentary, I would ask you, Acting Deputy President Reynolds, to request that Senator Cameron withdraw such a slur.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do concur that it is unparliamentary. Senator Cameron, would you like to withdraw that reflection on your colleagues—Senator Bernardi, in particular—in this chamber, particularly reflecting on the President's comments this morning?

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

On the point of order: I wasn't just describing Senator Bernardi; I was describing more senators. I wasn't targeting any individual senator. I think the public would understand that this is the truth. They are nut jobs.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Reflecting on the President's comments this morning in particular, it is unparliamentary.

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

If it assists the Senate, I will withdraw. The economic incompetence, the right-wing radicals on the other side—what a pathetic mob they are! They are an absolute rabble of a government. I hope that's okay to say, because I think that's pretty right. They are being dragged from pillar to post by the extremists on the other side. Senator Bernardi, the No. 1 Trump fan in Australian politics, is out there trying to learn from President Trump in the US—create more division, create problems for the economy and don't worry about what the implications are. It is a disastrous situation. The only way this can be fixed is with the election of a Shorten government at the next election.

The sooner this rabble of a government go to an election, the better. The sooner they get out and allow the Australian people to make a choice for stability and good economic management, the better. The Prime Minister went out and said that these recent by-elections in Tasmania, Queensland and Western Australia were a test of his leadership. He failed that test. Senator Cormann went out and said that the by-elections were a test of the tax cut policy. Senator Cormann, you failed that test. This government should pack their bags, go to an election and let the country become a better country, a decent country and a fairer country, not a country dominated by the supporters of big business and the banks. That's what this mob are: the supporters of big business, the supporters of the banks, the supporters of the people who would fill their own wallets at the expense of ordinary working people in this country. They are an absolute disgrace. For Senator Bernardi to get up and have this bill on here today after he took exactly the opposite position in government is an example of how crazy it's getting in this place. This is a crazy government. They don't get it. They don't understand how working people are doing it tough. All they want to do is look after the big end of town and look after the banks.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can't go past also highlighting that Senator Cameron himself, for a moment there in his speech on the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment (Debt Ceiling) Bill 2018, also sounded like a right-wing nut job. Let's put this into context.

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

I've never tried to cut penalty rates like you!

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, you've had your opportunity.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The only side who has cut penalty rates, Senator Cameron, is your side, including the wannabe Prime Minister. I'm very happy to go there anytime you want to have that debate.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Whish-Wilson, I would remind you to address your remarks through the chair.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Fine. Let's go back a few years, as Senator Cameron highlighted, to when the Greens supported raising the debt ceiling. In 2013 the government came to us and asked whether we would support raising the debt ceiling. It's very important to put this in context. That was a time when we had a so-called debt-and-deficit crisis in this country. That was a time when we had the zombie budget cuts and the Commission of Audit, which was looking at slashing expenditure everywhere—GP co-payments, education, hospital funding, you name it. That was a time when, more than any time I've been in the Senate, we needed to have the debate about debt and why debt is not a dirty word. Servicing debt is the issue, not the total amount of debt; it's the ability to repay and service the debt. I would've picked Senator Cameron as being a Keynesian until today. Getting up here and talking about cutting debt and cutting deficit—that's exactly what I heard from Senator Cormann. It's exactly what I heard from our previous Treasurer, Mr Joe Hockey. And it is really disappointing to hear Labor peddling the same mantra in this place about debt and deficit.

All debt is not bad. We have had a mature debate in this place, over the last 18 months, about good debt and bad debt, and the Greens have led this debate in the last few years. Debt, if spent correctly—if it's invested in education, health care and a social safety net—has a lot of benefits for our country. Debt, if it's for long-term, productivity-enhancing infrastructure spending, can not only create jobs; it can also have a lot of benefits for our country that go beyond simple neoclassical economics. Over nearly 18 months, I chaired a select inquiry into debt financing and the infrastructure gap in this country. We produced an excellent report, talking about why we should spend more money—more debt, capital spending, good debt—on long-term projects and have the infrastructure revolution that we need in this country.

There is a gap of hundreds of billions—possibly, depending on who you speak to, even trillions—of dollars in infrastructure financing and spending in this country, money that we could be spending to create jobs and to futureproof our communities. This is something that the Greens have argued. So, if we're going to talk about debt, let's go beyond the simple hard-right, conservative, neoliberal agenda and talk about why we need debt, how we service it, where it's spent and why we need that investment in our communities, our people and our economy. Then we can have a sensible debate about debt. I totally understand that debt is something that needs to be serviced and we need to have the ability to do that. If you want to have a look at a report that talks about a totally new way of financing debt and infrastructure spending in this country then go to that select inquiry into infrastructure financing.

I've got to say, I was very proud, in 2016, during the double-dissolution election, that my party, the Greens, took an excellent initiative on setting up a government owned infrastructure bank. If I remember rightly, Labor had a similar version, which I think they might have called the 'concrete bank', which used $10 billion of public funding to better spend on infrastructure. We went a lot further than that. We estimated we needed at least $80 billion of new long-term infrastructure spending, and we put up a structure to finance and fund that spending—a publicly owned infrastructure bank. In the same way, I'm very proud that we've also put up a structure for a publicly owned bank—a retail bank—recently, which we'll continue to prosecute. These are ideas that will work, and these are ideas that I have no doubt will be taken up again in the future.

All debt is not bad. Debt is not a dirty word. Let's go beyond this hard-right, conservative, neoliberal agenda of talking about debt in that way. I am disappointed that the Labor Party, especially Senator Cameron, have come in here today and peddled that mantra.

Question negatived.