House debates

Wednesday, 27 May 2009

Questions without Notice

Budget

2:38 pm

Photo of Mike SymonMike Symon (Deakin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. Will the minister outline the importance of the government’s investment in nation building for future growth and why the government has set out long-term projections for key budget indicators? What is the government’s response to claims that its budget projections are insufficiently rigorous and realistic?

Photo of Lindsay TannerLindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | | Hansard source

I thank the member for Deakin for his question, and I note there are 51 projects, worth over $21 million, scheduled in his electorate. Forty-five of those projects relate to schools. I note also that the members of the opposition voted against all of these projects when they came into the parliament. The government is committed to nation building for recovery through building infrastructure throughout Australia, whereas the opposition is committed to opposing this.

I note that there have been a number of criticisms of projections and figures in the budget, from a variety of sources but most particularly from the member for North Sydney. Yesterday the government, sadly, was not allowed to describe the member for North Sydney as ‘sloppy’ in his approach. It is a pity, because that is about the kindest adjective I can think of to describe his performance. Other words like ‘inaccurate’, ‘innumerate’ and ‘incoherent’ might come to mind, because yesterday the member for North Sydney asserted in the parliament that, in order to return the Commonwealth balance sheet to a debt-free position in the time frame projected by the budget, it would be necessary to run surpluses of two per cent of GDP or more for a period of eight years. Unfortunately, he appears to have done this calculation on the back of an envelope on the spur of the moment, and he has missed one very salient point. He appears to have taken the peak number of net debt, divided it by the figure of eight—for the period of eight years—and come up with $25 billion, which of course is roughly two per cent of GDP now. But it will not be two per cent of GDP in 10 years time. Guess what, Member for North Sydney: GDP grows over time—an extraordinary revelation for a would-be Treasurer!

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting

Photo of Harry JenkinsHarry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

Order! Those on my left!

Photo of Lindsay TannerLindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | | Hansard source

Unfortunately, there is, for the member for North Sydney, a very simple explanation as to why the figures in the budget papers show surpluses over the period he is referring to—figures like one per cent of GDP, 1.4 per cent of GDP, 1.6 per cent of GDP or whatever the figure may be—and that is that the figure against which the percentage will be calculated in due course will not be GDP for the year 2009-10; it will be GDP for the year 2019-20.

This is not the first occasion that the member for North Sydney has been decidedly sloppy with his attention to detail and figures. We note immediately that in the response to the budget he claimed that two-thirds of the peak in net debt that the government is projecting in the budget was covered by new spending. Unfortunately, he neglected to mention a very important fact—that he did not include all of the government’s savings measures in his calculations. And, naturally, he made no reference to the point that the total amount of net debt projected was actually lower than the total amount of revenue loss projected over the same period as a result of the global recession.

Finally, I would like to quote something that the member for North Sydney said at the National Press Club last week:

When Lindsay promised to bring together all the IT departments under a review and said there was going to be great savings out of consolidation, I notice, and I might be wrong, that in the budget papers there was not one dollar of savings. Out of all that IT bluster and bluff, there was not one dollar of savings.

Well, I have bad news for you, Member for North Sydney: you are wrong—you are very wrong. On page 50 of the Updated Economic and Fiscal Outlook papers published in February—which, if you were a decent shadow Treasurer, you would be familiar with—there is in fact a set of figures that indicate that there will be savings of over $400 million over four years from the IT savings that the member for North Sydney referred to. If a member of the opposition aspires to be the Treasurer of the nation, they have to do their homework. Being Treasurer is more than just breakfast TV shows and one-liners. It involves detail, it involves rigour and it involves hard work. We have gone from a shadow Treasurer who copies her work from others to one who makes things up! That is the standard of performance you get from the Liberal Party in economic debate in this country. If you cannot get your facts right in opposition, you are not fit to run the nation’s finances.

Photo of Harry JenkinsHarry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

The Chief Government Whip on a point of order?

Photo of Roger PriceRoger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, earlier in question time you gave advice to members about props. Is it appropriate for advisers to be displaying props or having props on their desks?

Photo of Harry JenkinsHarry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

I will keep my eye on that.

2:44 pm

Photo of Malcolm TurnbullMalcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister stand by his and the Treasurer’s claim that all the economic growth figures, inflation rates, budget surpluses and other financial assumptions through to 2022 are sufficient to support his dubious claim that all of his debt will be paid off in 2022 and are in fact set out in the budget papers?

Photo of Kevin RuddKevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | | Hansard source

In this dishonest scare campaign on deficit and debt—which is what it is; it is all about talking the economy down; it is not about building the economy up—the core element of hypocrisy is that the member just on his feet before, the member for North Sydney, has endorsed every dollar of the government’s deficit and debt strategy. He went out the day after the budget came down and said they would deliver a deficit and debt of $25 billion less than the government’s.

Photo of Christopher PyneChristopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is on relevance. The Prime Minister was asked a very specific question: whether he stood by the claim of himself and his Treasurer. We ask him to answer that specific question.

Photo of Harry JenkinsHarry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

Order! The member for Sturt will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is responding to the question.

Photo of Kevin RuddKevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | | Hansard source

It was the member for Sturt, the economic genius opposite, who said that the Asian financial crisis was just as bad as the current global economic recession. In fact, I think he may have said the Asian financial crisis was worse than the current global economic recession. I think the member for Sturt’s credibility on this question is non-existent. This is debt and deficit scare campaign—

Photo of Christopher PyneChristopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | | Hansard source

Answer the question, Mr Squiggle!

Photo of Harry JenkinsHarry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

Order! The member for Sturt will withdraw.

Photo of Christopher PyneChristopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | | Hansard source

Withdraw ‘Mr Squiggle’?

Photo of Harry JenkinsHarry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

The member for Sturt will withdraw.

Photo of Christopher PyneChristopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | | Hansard source

I withdraw, Mr Speaker.

Photo of Tony AbbottTony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Further to the request you have just put to the member for Sturt, and which he has very graciously complied with, I put it to you that under the standing orders referring to a member as Mr Squiggle is not disorderly—not disorderly at all!

Photo of Harry JenkinsHarry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

The member for Warringah will resume his seat. I say to the member for Warringah that I am not dissuaded by his argument from my actions, but I indicate to the member for Sturt that it is a really surprising set of behaviours, to come into the chamber and within five minutes think that he can prattle on without having the call. Like with the display of posters and other things, it is in the context of when people do not have the call that they have to expect that when notice is taken of their behaviour it will be dealt with.

Photo of Kevin RuddKevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | | Hansard source

Many of us on this side of the House would always stand up for the integrity of Miss Pat and the entire crew out there on Mr Squiggle. I am sure the member for Sturt has been a keen student of the program over the years.

I ask those opposite why the member for Sturt jumps to his feet every time I mention the fact that the member for North Sydney has an identical debt and deficit strategy to that of the government. They do not want to hear it—that is what it is all about. It actually goes to the total heart of the hypocrisy of the opposition’s campaign on debt and deficit.