My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Senator Wong. When does the government expect to go past the current limit of $200 billion in total stock of Commonwealth government securities as approved by the parliament?

I thank Senator Cormann for the question. I might use the opportunity—

An opposition senator: To answer the question.

I was going to let Senator Cormann know, because he made some comments publicly about this not being transparently disclosed in the budget papers, that this fact was disclosed in the budget papers, which I hope he would have had an opportunity to read in the six hours I assume he was in the lock-up. In fact, the Assistant Treasurer described this amendment to the CIS Act in his speech to the parliament on Tuesday. If you had done the work, Senator Cormann, you would have been aware of this as opposed to coming at it two days after the budget and leaping on it as if it was some sort of conspiracy in order to cover over your own incompetence in reading the budget papers.

Or Mr Hockey's.

Yes, that is true. Senator Sherry points out that it is probably Mr Hockey's rather than Senator Cormann's. I would agree with that.

Was Joe Hockey asleep at the wheel? Did he forget to mention it?

We will take it easy on you, Matthias.

Order! Senator Wong, it is impossible for me to hear because of the interjections that are coming from your side.

I am not sure I can control Senator Conroy. Others have tried, I suspect. It is the case that as a result of the lower levels of revenue that the government has experienced due to the global financial crisis and the impact of the natural disasters the debt cap will need to be extended. (Time expired)

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question to give the minister the opportunity to actually provide an answer. On what day would the government's projections breach its effective debt ceiling currently approved by the parliament? In other words, when will this government run out of money unless the parliament agrees to another $50 billion worth of debt?

I am unsure what the good senator is suggesting. I am assuming that he is not suggesting that the opposition would be so reckless as to not pass that amendment. That would be unprecedented. Even Senator Joyce—

Order! It is completely disorderly for people on both sides to be shouting across the chamber during question time.

Mr President, on a point of order relating to the requirement for the minister to be directly relevant, I asked a very specific question about a date on which the government is going to run out of money unless the parliament agrees to another $50 billion worth of debt. The minister, other than loading a lot of abuse on the opposition, has not come anywhere near providing an answer to that very specific question about a specific date.

On that point order, Mr President, the minister was very relevant because underlying that question was the issue that the minister was responding to. It would be inappropriate for me to use the point of order to do that, unlike how the opposition occasionally do. The minister has been dealing with the question by being directly relevant in responding to the question. I humbly submit that there is no point of order.

There is no point of order. Senator Wong, you still have 40 seconds remaining to address the question.

As I said, even Senator Joyce in public comments today made clear that even the opposition would not be so reckless as to oppose such an amendment. Senator Cormann knows that the amount of gross debt is articulated in the budget papers. It might assist him to be aware that the budget papers represent the market value of Commonwealth government securities as opposed to the legislation, which of course represents the face value.

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Given the minister refers to all these special circumstances—floods, cyclones, tsunamis, the global financial crisis and so on—why does the government then want a blank cheque from the parliament? Why does the government want to change the current requirement where the government has to declare special circumstances and table an explanation in both houses of parliament when it increases its debt above $75 billion? Why do you want to remove that requirement which is in the current legislation? Why do you want a blank cheque from the parliament?

Why isn't the shadow shadow finance minister asking these questions?

Order, Senator Conroy! Senator Wong.

Thank you, Mr President—

Why do you need to remove the special circumstances?

Senator Cormann, you have asked your question. The minister deserves the opportunity to answer.

I think the only people who are talking about transparency, or a lack thereof, are members of the opposition, who failed to look at this issue in the budget papers and in the appropriation bills. They come in here and suggest that the government has not been transparent, when this is clearly articulated in the budget papers and in the appropriation bills. The question for the opposition is: if you are so concerned about debt, why are you opposing the government's savings measures? You cannot come in here and talk about debt while you are set to wreck the budget surplus.

My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Senator Wong. Can the minister outline to the Senate why it is important that budgets be framed within the government's strict fiscal rules?

I thank Senator Wortley for the question. The fact is that those on this side understand the need for budget discipline. Those on the other side are led by a man who is a risk to the Australian economy and a risk to the budget surplus. The fact is that the economic and fiscal circumstances in which the nation finds itself do require the sort of fiscal discipline the government is demon­strating. We are moving, in this economy, from a period of short-term softness as a result of the patchwork economy, the high dollar and natural disasters—all of which the opposition wish to ignore—to a period of long-term strength as the mining boom gathers pace. The budget we presented to this parliament recognises this. It puts in place strict spending discipline and builds surpluses in the years ahead so that government does not compound price press­ures in the economy.

The issue is that those on the other side like to talk about budget discipline and they like to talk about surpluses. There is a lot of talk. But, to deliver a surplus, you have to ensure you put in place savings measures. Those on that side, who like to pretend they are fiscal conservatives, should explain to the Australian people—

Pretend? That is four deficits!

They pretend they are fiscal conservatives—

Four deficits in a row! You're the one with the deficits!

You would be embarrassed, Senator Fifield, by where your leader is taking you.

Senator Fifield interjecting—

I understand why you are shouting at me. It is because you would be embarrassed by where Mr Abbott is taking you—a completely reckless approach to the budget, an absolute risk to the economy and a risk to the budget. Senator Fifield worked for Mr Costello long enough to know you do not get a surplus without getting savings measures in place. But you have your shadow Treasurer and your leader out there opposing the government's savings measures. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, Senator Fifield.

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware of any alternative fiscal policies to manage the budget during these challenging times? Are those alternatives realistic; and how do they compare with the government's fiscally disciplined and economically responsible approach?

You should go back to children's television, with fairy stories like that!

Have you heard of doublethink?

When we have silence, we will proceed.

I am again going to quote Mr Costello, who perhaps, if he were still in the parliament, might drag Mr Hockey and Mr Abbott to consider the budget position properly. Mr Costello, when he was Treasurer, stated how an opposition should do a proper budget reply. He said:

You do the tables as to what your policies are going to cost and how you're going to pay for them …

That is the test your guru, Mr Costello, set for your leader, Mr Abbott. Let us see how Mr Abbott measures up tonight. Will he actually put out policies which will bring the budget back to surplus, or will the coalition become the party of higher deficits? Now, just in case Mr Abbott does not, the government has in fact prepared very carefully what your budget position would look like, were you in government. (Time expired)

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Can the minister outline to the Senate any alternative approaches that are a threat to sound economic management?

Put very simply, the risk to sound economic management is Tony Abbott. It is very simple. The government has put together the real story of Tony Abbott's budget reply, which shows—because no doubt he will try and ensure he does not put any figures before the parliament—that the opposition is in deficit for every year of the budget period. You never come back to surplus. And do you know why? Because you run around talking about debt and surpluses without doing any of the work.

Senator Wong, please resume your seat. When the debate in the chamber ceases, we will proceed. The time for debating is post question time. Senators are aware of that. Minister Wong.

If the coalition were in government, on the basis of their $10.6 billion black hole and their opposition to all of the savings measures, they would be in deficit. No wonder their budget reply is covered in red ink, because you are the party that seek to wreck the— (Time expired)