Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to speak in this important budget debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2009-2010 and cognate bills. We have heard many things in the two weeks since budget night. A budget is more than just a set of financial statements. It very much tells the story of a government at so many levels. A budget shows the competence of a government. A budget shows the priorities of a government and sets a window through which the public can see how their government is really performing. This budget of two and a bit weeks ago, coming halfway through this parliamentary term, has given the Australian people a much clearer view of the Rudd Labor government.

Through this budget process the public are beginning to see the true Labor Party. At every level this budget has shown a government that is economically incompetent, a government that panics and bungles, and, most particularly, it shows a government obsessed with spin and silly language. It is obsessed with silly language to the point of comedy. The sad thing about it is that the only people that do not seem to see the comedy are the Labor Party ministers and their backbench.

We just heard a 20-minute contribution from the member for Ballarat. I do not single her out; she just happened to be speaking before me. We could check later, but I think she uttered the word ‘decisive’ about five or 10 times—as they all do. It is as if they have been told that every sentence they utter must have one of the Prime Minister or Treasurer’s buzzwords and that somehow that will cover for their economic incompetence and bungling.

We saw this begin before the government was elected, but we witnessed it plummet to new depths in the week before the budget. We saw the Treasurer and the Prime Minister talk seriously about temporary deficits for the next six years—six years being a temporary period of time! They persisted with this line day after day. As I have said in previous debates, it is lucky that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are not running a garage, where you dropped your car off and took the temporary car while your car was serviced. Imagine coming back every night for six years only to be told, ‘No, your car is not ready. Stick with the temporary car.’ The language before the budget and the response to it all around Australia, and, rightly, from the press gallery, should have been a warning to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer that their obsession with cute lines and tortuous language was wearing thin.

In a time of economic difficulty you expect a Prime Minister and a Treasurer to be candid. On budget night we saw something that was utterly amazing. At the end of the day, Madam Deputy Speaker, all of the budget papers and the associated financial statements come down to the budget bottom line. That is what they all add up to. When everything is said and done it comes down to one figure—the surplus or deficit. We saw the Treasurer on budget night stand up and give a 30-minute speech and not mention the budget deficit figure. This was remarkable at one level, but I have to say it was sad for the Treasurer. One day he will realise just what a ridiculous omission that was—thinking that not mentioning the budget deficit figure in the budget speech would somehow conceal it from the Australian people.

Just in case that was some accident, the very next day, after the Treasurer had been questioned on budget night about why the figure was not there, we saw him still refusing to be candid and utter the budget deficit figure in a radio interview with Fran Kelly:

Kelly: Treasurer, you didn’t say the deficit number in the speech last night. Are you scared of saying it out loud?

Wayne Swan: No, I’m not scared of saying the deficit number.

Kelly: Do you want to say it now? What is the deficit?

Swan: We outlined it in great detail last night and it’s 57.

Fifty-seven what? This is juvenile beyond belief. Fifty-seven what? We all know—$57 billion. That is what he is talking about. He is talking about dollars. He could not say it in his budget speech and he could not bring himself to say it the next day. Far from concealing it, he highlighted the economic incompetence of this government and its utter determination to do anything but level with the Australian people. In his own performance he shone a spotlight on the failings of this government. Fifty-seven what? ‘$57 billion’ is what he was trying to say, but for those listening to Fran Kelly it could have been 57 hair dryers, 57 hard hats or 57 fluorescent vests—another obsession of this government. You would think that would be enough to make the tactics-obsessed Labor Party say, ‘Hang on—we’ve made a big blue here. We’d better change tack.’ But, no. The Prime Minister gave us a window to see where this was all coming from.

It is quite obvious that this was the Prime Minister again at his manic best, because the Prime Minister embarked on a similar ‘don’t mention the war’ strategy when it came to government debt. In the week following the budget the Prime Minister refused to mention the level of debt and the billions of dollars in the one sentence. It was absolutely torturous to watch, and it reached a peak on the Lateline program. Tony Jones must have thought that he was interviewing John Clarke. It made the John Clarke interview at the end of The 7.30 Report look lame. It is something that we have never seen a Prime Minister do before. Tony Jones said to the Prime Minister: ‘What is the actual figure?’ ‘Well, Tony, I’m about to come to that when I go to the constituent parts.’ He refused to answer the question.

Tony Jones followed up, ‘But all I’m asking for is one figure.’ Prime Minister, ‘I’m about to come to that. In the budget papers, we’ve been aiming to a gross figure of 13.8, which comes out at about 300.’ Again, 300 what? Jones, ‘That figure is $300-billion, is that right?’ Prime Minister, ‘As I said before, 13.8 per cent of GDP as described in the Budget papers.’ Finally, in exasperation, Tony Jones said, ‘Is there a political spin rule which says the Prime Minister must not say that figure, because it seems very hard to get you to say $300 billion.’

The answer to Tony Jones’s question is yes, there is a political spin rule and political spin dominates this government, at every level. This farce is continuing with the Prime Minister in his interviews. We saw exactly the same tortuous language when it came to whether he would admit he had broken promises. He has broken promises, solemn promises he gave, hand on heart, before the election; many of them. The first to stand out is the promise not to touch, in any way, shape or form, or to alter in any respect the private health insurance rebate. Kevin Rudd signed the letter in his own hand which said:

Both my shadow minister for health Nicola Roxon and I have made clear on many occasions this year that federal Labor is committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates, including the 30 per cent general rebate and the 35 and 40 per cent rebates for older Australians.

He said in a press conference:

Private health insurance rebate policy remains unchanged and will remain unchanged.

He is prepared to sign his name to a letter and break his own word. On superannuation, just a couple of weeks before the election, speaking on 4BC radio in Brisbane on 12 November, the Prime Minister said:

There will be no change to the superannuation laws—not one jot, not one tittle.

The day after the budget, the Prime Minister was interviewed by Neil Mitchell on 3AW, Melbourne, who began the interview by asking the Prime Minister:

Will you apologise to the Australian people for directly breaking the promises you made before the election?

PRIME MINISTER—Neil, I accept full responsibility for that and for not being able to fulfil some of these policy commitments.

MITCHELL—It’s not that; it’s the broken promises.

PRIME MINISTER—No, policy commitments.

MITCHELL—Promises broken, Prime Minister.

PRIME MINISTER—Policy commitments that we have not fulfilled. I accept full responsibility for that.

MITCHELL: But don’t you accept there were promises broken?

PRIME MINISTER: Well, we’re talking about exactly the same thing.

We are not talking about the same thing. This is ridiculous, tortuous language. The Prime Minister now says he has not broken any promises because he did not make any promises before the last election. That will be news to the Australian people. He made policy commitments and in the Prime Minister’s crazy world somehow they are different. The Prime Minister wants the Australian people to believe that he did not make a single promise before the election, that he made policy commitments, and it is okay to break those. The Australian people are beginning to wake up to this.

Australians are beginning to see a Prime Minister that is more worried about stunts than he is about the detail and about getting it right. They have seen a Prime Minister who will play with the truth and who will do anything to avoid levelling with the Australian people. We saw this in the imagery in the week after the budget: the Prime Minister in a fluorescent vest and hard hat, surrounded by fellow ministers. Whenever you see a fluorescent vest and a hard hat coming, you know the Labor caucus is on the way.

It is pretty obvious that in budget week the Labor caucus were not issued with briefing notes on the budget. That has been very obvious this week. The member for Petrie copped some criticism because she could not say at a press conference what the budget deficit figure was. It might shock you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it might shock my Liberal colleague here, but I felt sorry for the member for Petrie. She sat through the budget speech, and she did not hear the budget deficit figure. She would have sat through the caucus briefing beforehand for half an hour, and what we know from that is that the budget deficit figure would not have been released. When the Labor caucus members came to get their briefing material at the end of budget week for the budget sell in their electorates, they got a kit from Bunnings. They got a hard hat and a fluorescent vest. As I said the other day, when they appear at these sites they should also take a sign: ‘Danger! Reckless spenders in vicinity’.

Only today we saw the extent—and this is just one example—of the bungling of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer say money needs to be spent so, therefore, there should be no scrutiny and there should be no care and responsibility for how that money is spent. We have seen today some more detail on an earlier story about the $40 million of the stimulus package and the $900 payments going to dead people and expats. We knew shortly after the release of the February package that the $900 was going to criminals—Kev’s cash for crims. And today we have the headline in the Herald Sun: ‘Dead lucky: PM’s $40 million gift to Aussies in the grave’. Money going from Australia to overseas does not stimulate the Australian economy. Now $40 million might not seem like a lot to the Prime Minister with the amount he is spending, but this is an example of the litany of mistakes that we have seen at every turn from this Prime Minister and from this Treasurer.

This budget is a budget that Australia has not seen before. It took 10 long years to pay off the $96 billion of debt that the last Labor government left this country. It took 10 long years and it was $96 billion. Now we have debt not seen in our lifetimes and it is at Everest levels. What the Labor Party and those opposite should be saying as they wear their hard hats and fluorescent vests is what the interest cost of that will be for taxpayers not just today but 10, 20 and 30 years into the future, because every dollar borrowed has to be paid back and the interest on that every year is something that will borne by the taxpayers of today and tomorrow. (Time expired)

See this speech in context