House debates

Monday, 27 May 2013

Bills

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2013-2014, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014; Second Reading

3:59 pm

Photo of Bruce BillsonBruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

There must be some kind of frozen fingeritis as the Treasurer counts his money. He must have chilblains to try and have people believe that these alpine ski jumps are anything like reality.

The one I think is extraordinary is apparently the boats are going to stop. They are not going to change any policy setting. They are not going to reinstate the Howard government policies that actually worked. But the boats are going to stop. The member for McEwen—I will forgive him for being a bit of a rookie—do you know how many people were in detention who had arrived illegally by boats when the Howard government left office? Four people. Labor used to go around saying that every boat that arrived was a policy failure. They were getting stuck into the coalition because we kept Manus Island open and there was only one person in there. What a nice problem to have. Now there are tens of thousands of people. There is no change in policy but again this budget relies on the assumption that everything is going to be back under control. We will be able to strengthen and protect our borders yet there is no evidence of that.

Our VISA card limit as a nation is $300 million and is under pressure again. It has already been lifted five times by Labor as they fund their spending binge. The budget papers reveal that it will peak again at $370.3 billion in 2016-17 yet there is no provision in here for raising that VISA card limit because the government knows it cannot face its own failure again after assuring the parliament over and over again that it would never be need to be corrected again.

Then there is the Parliamentary Budget Office account of the structural deficits and surpluses. Again, another kind of ski jump—the ones that are above the line are the structural surpluses under the coalition and the ones below the line are the structural deficits under Labor. Even in here there is a very concerning warning drawn to the parliament's attention. It talks about what the government calls its signature programs. Its school improvement program actually saw $325 million pulled out of schools over the life of this government. Again, you are expected to vote for Labor four times before you see any upside. That is a lot to ask of people I would submit to you. It also talks about disability care. It says that it is nice that the structural deficits are made a little bit less worse by the government's approach to these two signature projects. Why is it saying that? It is saying that because, in here, the Parliamentary Budget Office knows that there is less money being spent on schools in the forward years of the estimates. That takes the pressure off the structural deficit Labor has created. They give the government an implied 'thank you' for taking some pressure off the budget structural deficit. But then they say, 'What happens after those years?' There is the ski jump again; the expenditure is supposed to go up. Vote for Labor four times and you might see some upside. Here is the warning saying that that will add to the structural deficit that Labor has created and inculcated into our financial system. It makes the same point about the disability program and the increase in the Medicare levy. It is making the point that more money is being raised to pay for the trials than is needed at the moment, but when the scheme is fully rolled out there is nowhere near enough money. So, even on these signature programs, the Parliamentary Budget Office is belling the cat again that Labor is incapable of managing finances, and that is causing great concern through the Australian community.

We have heard some people say, 'Well, what will the coalition do?' Did you see that fantastic budget address-in-reply by the Leader of the Opposition? What a remarkably good speech. It is probably the best I have seen. I am told by people who have been involved in public life for decades longer than me that it was the best they have seen as well. It was clear and coherent. It was a plan with more fiscal detail than Labor or any opposition leader in the last 30 years has provided. It showed how you could keep what was supposed to be the compensation for the harm of the carbon tax without the hurt of the carbon tax and how that would be funded. With the budget emergency that the government has created we will all have to, as a parliament, face up to some difficult financial decisions. Whatever side of politics is elected, all will need to face up to that economic reality. Even Labor, if they are re-elected, will have to face up to the economic reality. That is why when they are making promises about spending you just have to remember all the promises that have been made already. They have less of a shelf-life than a loaf of bread; it goes off after about a week. This is the problem that we have with this government.

Don Argus has warned people about the concerns and has pointed to the need for consolidation. But I am worried about what it is doing to young people who talk to me about their concerns. They do all we ask of them as a society to train, to prepare, to study to tool-up and to nurture their capacity to make a contribution, and they are wondering where that start will be. Where will that start be? There is nothing in this budget that builds confidence in the economy. There is nothing in this budget that gives some support or a game-changer to small business. There is nothing in this budget that takes the pressure off household budgets. There is nothing in this budget that gives encouragement to courageous men and women who take risks to create opportunities for themselves and their communities. There is nothing of that kind in this budget whatsoever.

What is in this budget is a whole lot of short-term fixes that do not stand the test of analysis. What is in this budget is the longest confession note that they are trying to make life difficult for whomever forms government after the next election. What is in this budget is a testimonial to all the mismanagement, the waste, the debt and deficit of years of Labor, which this nation cannot afford to keep, and the people in this nation cannot bear having it hung over them as a disadvantage for their future prospects and future opportunities. I will give you an example. The debt—$7.8 billion a year will be the interest charged on Labor's debt alone. Imagine what you could do with that. Imagine what you could do with all of the spending that has gone onto non-productive and useless activities that have not improved our capacity as a nation and our prospects for the future. It is quite the opposite.

For the small business men and women who are looking for a sign that Labor had the vaguest interest in their success, there have been five small-business ministers in 15 months. There is no interest in the quarter of a million jobs that have been lost in small business as a result of this government's mismanagement. Even the things they were promising such as the lost carryback, which was a proposition the coalition advocated in response to the GFC, has gone as well. The tax office is saying, 'Don't use it. Do the right thing by the nation.' (Time expired)

Comments

No comments