Tanya Plibersek Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition
2:17 pm
My question is to the Prime Minister. Before the election the Prime Minister said:
… a government which is taking money off schools and hospitals so it can spend it on ads and this is absolutely the wrong way to go.
Why is the Prime Minister spending money on a propaganda campaign while cutting $80 billion from schools and hospitals?
Tony Abbott Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister
2:18 pm
Again, two falsehoods. We are not cutting $80 billion from schools and hospitals. There was no $80 billion in any Labor budget. There was no $80 billion in any Labor budget to be cut.
Tanya Plibersek Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition
The Budget Overview says on page 7—
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop Speaker
There is no point of order. Resume your seat.
Tony Abbott Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister
So there was no $80 billion in any Labor budget, no $80 billion that Labor ever set aside in any Labor budget, that has been cut. All that is happening is that the rate of increase has been reduced because the rate of increase that members opposite were proposing is simply unsustainable. Let me make it crystal clear to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who cannot contain her excitement—
Jenny Macklin Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Payments
That is why Mike said it is a kick in the guts.
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop Speaker
The member for Jagajaga! That is unparliamentary.
Ms Macklin interjecting—
Correct, but not in this place.
Tony Abbott Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister
Hospital funding increases by nine per cent this year, nine per cent next year, nine per cent the year after that and six per cent the year after that. What sort of a cut is a nine per cent increase? What sort of a cut is a six per cent increase? I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: what sort of a cut is a nine per cent increase?
Opposition members interjecting—
Tony Abbott Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister
That is falsehood No. 1. Falsehood No. 2: there is no government advertising campaign, so please stop having the vapours about something that is not happening. Stop wasting questions. Members opposite are supposed to be so excited about this budget and they are already off the budget and onto a piece of confected fantasy. That is what they are doing.
Given that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is incapable of asking a serious question in this place, let me offer a serious point and say thank you to our friends from Malaysia. Let me say how pleased I have been to work with the Malaysian government and how pleased I have been to work with Prime Minister Najib of Malaysia on the hunt for flight MH370, a search that goes on and a search that this government will continue to prosecute. We owe it to the families of the 239 people on that flight not to rest until we can solve this mystery.
Alex Hawke Mitchell, Liberal Party
2:21 pm
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline the importance of the structural reform contained in the budget? Can the Treasurer also outline what are the lessons that can be learned from past experiences in this regard?
Mr Husic interjecting—
Joe Hockey North Sydney, Liberal Party, Treasurer
I thank the member for Mitchell for his question because he knows how important it is to remember experiences from the past. Of course, the fact is that the experience that we are dealing with is that Labor left $667 billion of debt and $123 billion of deficits. When the Labor Party are challenged about what they would do about this very significant structural problem, they say: 'Don't worry. When we were in government we had $180 billion of savings.' I thought: 'Wow, $180 billion of savings. Let's go a bit into that,' because you have to peel it apart like an onion to find out what it really is. In fact, nearly half of it is increases in taxes—not savings, but actual increases in taxes.
Ms Owens interjecting—
In fact, their definition of savings is about taking more savings from the Australian taxpayer.
Ms Owens interjecting—
Joe Hockey North Sydney, Liberal Party, Treasurer
That is the Labor Party's definition of savings. And then the second part of the $180 billion—
Mr Bowen interjecting—
I'm coming to you, china, in a minute—just a second. With the second part of the $180 billion, I thought, 'Wow, they saved $180 billion'. But they spent $152 billion of it on new expenditure. The problem was the expenditure kept going up and up and up, and that is why we are facing $667 billion of debt.
The fact is Labor once upon a time believed in structural reform. You know, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, they believed in structural reform. In fact I went to the member from McMahon's book and found that he said:
The Hawke Government was introducing tough and controversial reforms to modernise the economy. … I knew that Labor was trying to make the economy grow so that kids like me could get better jobs.
If that is the case, then he should now be rusted on to our structural reforms that deliver a stronger economy. Instead, the Labor Party cannot hold a policy from week to week. They terminated the carbon tax, but now they are voting to keep it. Three weeks ago they said they were totally opposed to the deficit levy, now they are going to support it. And yesterday they were backgrounding that they were going to allow through the government's proposals in relation to the family tax benefit and then, today, they come out and say, no, they have reversed their position. So if Labor cannot hold a position from day to day and if Labor cannot hold a position from week to week, there is no chance, no chance on earth—
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop Speaker
I tell the member for Rankin that he is warned!
Joe Hockey North Sydney, Liberal Party, Treasurer
that this Labor Party, which has no soul and has no principles, is ever going to deal with the structural challenges facing the Australian economy. The Labor Party of today has no principles, has no values, has no leadership.
Chris Bowen McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer
2:24 pm
Madam Speaker, my question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, a senior Liberal has described the budget as 'a stinking carcass hanging around the government's neck'. Why are the Prime Minister and the Treasurer taking money from schools and hospitals—taxpayers' money—to promote their stinking carcass of a budget?
Mr Pyne interjecting—
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop Speaker
The Leader of the House will resume his seat. When the member from McMahon phrases his question in those terms, I think it reflects more on the asker of the question. It certainly could never be described as an elegant question, but it will stand.
Christopher Pyne Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Education
Madam Speaker, my objection to the question is not so much the argument but the fact that a quotation needs to be sourced. A quotation that is simply an anonymous statement could be merely speculative; it could have been anybody at all. It is not a question that is in order. The opposition has a myriad of opportunities to find quotations that could be in order, that one is not.
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop Speaker
I think it is a moot point. I am going to allow the question to stand.
Joe Hockey North Sydney, Liberal Party, Treasurer
2:26 pm
I thank the honourable member for McMahon for the question. If he is concerned about a stinking carcass, he only needs to look in front of him at the Leader of the Opposition. And why so? Because it is the Leader of the Opposition who is the custodian of the legacy—
Mr Tony Burke Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order: there is a difference under standing orders between using that language with respect to a budget and using it with respect to another member of the House, and in that way it should be withdrawn.
Bill Shorten Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition
Yes; disgraceful. Hopeless.
Mr Tony Burke Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop Speaker
It is the same moot point. I allowed the question to stand. There is no point of order.
Mr Tony Burke Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance
So it is parliamentary to use a phrase like that about a member of the parliament? Is that what—
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop Speaker
Stop! I would ask the honourable the Treasurer: when he used that expression, was he in fact reflecting on another member of parliament? If he was, he will kindly withdraw.
Joe Hockey North Sydney, Liberal Party, Treasurer
I withdraw. And it is not terribly dignified at all, is it? But of course they asked the question. And it was a former Labor Prime Minister—
Mr Shorten interjecting—
I'm sorry—what are you saying?
Mr Shorten interjecting—
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop Speaker
The honourable Leader of the Opposition will desist.
Joe Hockey North Sydney, Liberal Party, Treasurer
Are you okay? Are you coping? Are you all right?
Mr Shorten interjecting—
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop Speaker
The Leader of the Opposition will desist.
Mr Shorten interjecting—
Joe Hockey North Sydney, Liberal Party, Treasurer
Calm down. I know it's a bit tough for you—
Mr Shorten interjecting—
Bill Shorten Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition
I could not hear what you said over Joe's interrupting you.
Bill Shorten Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition
Good.
Joe Hockey North Sydney, Liberal Party, Treasurer
It is not terribly edifying, but it was a former Labor Prime Minister who stood at this very dispatch box and used that term and it is now the current Labor Party that chooses to repeat that term.
Opposition members interjecting—
Joe Hockey North Sydney, Liberal Party, Treasurer
I will tell you why: if we are dealing with legacies, the greatest legacy Labor has left is 200,000 more Australians unemployed. The greatest legacy Labor has left is $123 billion of deficits. The greatest legacy Labor has left is $667 billion of debt. And now that they are in opposition they are trying to create a new legacy, because they are opposing $40 billion of savings that are going towards fixing the mess that they created. They started the fire in the kitchen, and now they are trying to stop the fireman from putting it out.
Of course they think it is funny, they think it is humorous; they think it is clever politics. You see the Labor Party's response to the entire budget has been about politics and process, not about policy—and why? I will tell you why. They were the architects of the co-payment in Medicare, they were the architects of the co-payment for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, they were the ones who first introduced university fees—the Labor Party were when they actually did have principles. The coalition supported them in those reforms because we knew we had to do what was right for the country even when we were in opposition.
But now the modern Labor Party has no principles, it has no values, and it has no leadership. That is reflected in the fact that the modern Labor Party does not know what to support and want to oppose from day to day. That is the legacy of the modern Labor Party. I say to you: the people who should be most concerned about that are the Australian people, because there has always been a bipartisan approach to fix and strengthen the Australian economy. The only obstacle today, the only thing swinging in the breeze, is the modern Labor Party.