Michelle Landry (Capricornia, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline the importance of stability and consistency in public policy. What other approaches are there to management of the budget?

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for Capricornia for her question.

Mr Husic interjecting—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Chifley will desist.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I really do hope those opposite listen carefully to the answer, because it is hugely important to be consistent and predictable in relation to public policy. That is why, as the Prime Minister said before, we went to the last election promising veterans that we would lift the indexation arrangements in relation to particular payments.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No cuts to pensions!

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sydney will desist.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And we have delivered. Unlike Labor, which went to a previous election promising to lift indexation and, when it got into government, walked away—they were inconsistent—we are consistent. In the budget we said that we are going to have a Medicare co-payment to make it sustainable. The Labor Party, once upon a time, believed in Medicare co-payments. In fact, in the 1991 budget speech the government said:

The Government is therefore reforming Medicare to change benefit arrangements to slow the growth in the use of medical services and to assist the medical profession to lift the quality of care available from General Practitioners.

So the Labor Party, once upon a time, believed in co-payments in Medicare; now they do not. How does that sit with them previously saying that they believed in co-payments for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme? In fact, they invented the co-payment for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in 1990.

And when they were last in government the Labor Party were imposing a co-payment fee on pensioners, of $6 per script for the first 60 scripts—$360. Now, they are so outraged about a co-payment for pensioners that they are opposing, for pensioners, a $70 co-payment over 10 visits to the doctor. So what is the consistency there? There is no consistency.

But wait: there is more. In 2009, the Labor Party froze indexation of the upper-income thresholds of family tax benefits A and B and the baby bonus for three years. So in government they wanted to freeze family payments. Now they are in opposition they want to oppose a freeze on family payments. In the 2011 budget, the Labor Party again froze indexation of supplements for three years; now they want to oppose the freezing of supplements. The Labor Party, in government, introduced indexation of fuel excise; now they want to oppose the indexation of fuel excise.

The Labor Party, in government, introduced fees for universities. Now they are opposed to changes in universities. I well remember. It was the Labor Party, of course, that increased the pension age to 67. Now the Labor Party want to oppose it going to 70. You see, it is their hypocrisy, because the Labor Party has no core principles. There is no light on the hill.