Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

No, I have got much, much more. Member for Throsby, you have now fallen foul on opposing every single thing that we promised. We promised through the campaign that we would get rid of the carbon tax. That is not something that we just pulled out of our back pocket. We said we were going to oppose the carbon tax; you are opposing it. We said we were going to oppose the mining tax; you guys are opposing it. We said we were going to oppose TPVs; they are not going through. You have struggled with the education debate.

But I want to get back to the current debt. You knew that this debt ceiling needed to be shifted. The entire government knew that it needed to be shifted. The evidence of that was in an interview with the previous Treasurer and, by all accounts, a great Treasurer! He was 'Treasurer of the Year,' and he cannot get a start on your frontbench. On Wednesday, 15 May, there was an interview with the then Treasurer, Wayne Swan, member for Lilley, with Neil Mitchell of 3AW in Melbourne. Neil Mitchell very simply asked:

Will whoever wins the next election need to raise the debt level?

That was the question asked. The response from the then Treasurer was:

That will be a matter for them.

The government knew. I have been challenged in my own electorate. I want to get this on the record and I did it the other day on the television. I have been challenged in my electorate on the points made by the other side of the House. We said we wanted to bring down debt. Why is it then that one of our first acts in getting into government was to increase the debt ceiling? The simple fact of the matter is that the ongoing expenses are still yet to hit our MasterCard. If we liken it to a family budget, the expenses that Labor have racked up have still yet to hit. We have sat in this House for no fewer than eight days since the election. It is unthinkable to suggest that the key policy issues that we have brought before this House, which are still waiting to be ratified by the Senate, have had any budgetary impacts. The additional revenue limit is needed to substantiate the extra increase of expenditure that the opposition ran up. It is the opposition's debt, you own it and we will make sure that we pay it back.

See this speech in context