House debates Questions without Notice
Higher Education Reforms
Chris Bowen McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer
2:34 pm
My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to the humiliating defeat of the government's unfair higher education package in the Senate. I also refer to the explanatory memorandum to the bill, reintroduced this morning, which confirms a $3.5 billion hit to the budget. What will the Treasurer be cutting to fill his new $3.5 billion black hole?
Joe Hockey North Sydney, Liberal Party, Treasurer
2:35 pm
The basis of the question is fundamentally wrong. We are absolutely committed to higher education reform and we will continue with higher education reform. It is absolutely the case that it continues to deliver savings. From our perspective, we have to deal with the opposition of the Labor Party—
Chris Bowen McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop Speaker
No, there is no point of order. Resume your seat. The Treasurer has the call.
Joe Hockey North Sydney, Liberal Party, Treasurer
They cry crocodile tears about the state of the budget, yet they were the ones who created the mess and they are the ones that are stopping us from fixing it. The figure of $43 billion would worsen the budget bottom line as a result of Labor's initiatives. Labor is directly opposing $28 billion of savings in the budget.
Mr Burke interjecting—
Joe Hockey North Sydney, Liberal Party, Treasurer
And they are proposing another $15 billion of additional spending. I am perplexed at this new economic narrative from Labor that suggests that, if you spend more, the bottom line improves. Where does that idea come from that if the government spends more, then the deficit will improve? The bottom line is that, every time the Labor Party blocks something, there is a cost not just to us but to the Australian people. Nothing illustrates it better than the fact—something that the member for McMahon should be familiar with—that the Labor Party are opposing $1.1 billion of savings that they announced in relation to R&D tax concessions for the 20 largest companies in Australia. It was the member for Lilley who advised the Australian people that that saving was essential to improve the budget bottom line, and the member for McMahon got all confused about it and thought it was related to Gonski. It was never related to Gonski. It was directly as a result of his attempts to try and fix the budget bottom line, which was a crisis when Labor was in government.
Mr Swan interjecting—
Joe Hockey North Sydney, Liberal Party, Treasurer
I am simply quoting the member for Lilley's own words.
Mr Swan interjecting—
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop Speaker
The member for Lilley has already been asked to withdraw. If he keeps—
Mr Swan interjecting—
The member for Lilley will remove himself under 94(a).
Joe Hockey North Sydney, Liberal Party, Treasurer
I am afraid the member for Lilley has no class. What that reflects is that the is more about political games than dealing with the ugly legacy that he left the Australian people, which we are determined to fix up.
Ms Owens interjecting—
Mr Tony Burke Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance
Madam Speaker, on a point of order—
Mr Tony Burke Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance
Madam Speaker, you have asked this chamber for demeanour today; it works both ways.