George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, my question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Wong. I refer the minister to the fact that, under the Rudd-Gillard Labor govern­ment, productivity has stagnated so that, last year, for the first time in 20 years, there was no net increase in jobs; $70 billion in net Commonwealth assets has been turned into $133 billion of net Commonwealth debt; and a $20 billion budget surplus has turned into four consecutive budget deficits, the four largest in Australia's history, to a cumulative total of $167 billion worth of deficits. Given Labor's run of budget deficits and economic failure, and the fact that it cannot make a promise without breaking it, why should the Australian people have any confidence that the government's latest promise, to deliver its first ever budget surplus, will not be yet another broken promise?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to take a question on the economy, although I am surprised that Senator Cormann did not have the opportunity to ask that question. I want to remind those opposite of something they really do not like to hear, and it is this: under this government, we have created over 700,000 jobs since we came to government. Under this government, we have come through the global financial crisis with one of the strongest economies of any of the advanced economies anywhere in the world and one of the strongest fiscal positions anywhere in the world. We have an unemployment rate of 5.2 per cent. In the eurozone it is 10.4 per cent. These are the facts that those opposite do not want to hear.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, please resume your seat. I need to hear the answer. When you are ready, we will proceed.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These are the facts that those opposite do not want to hear. All they want to do is talk down the Australian economy—how irresponsible of you.

I was also asked by Senator Brandis about surpluses. I am very happy to have a discussion about surpluses, but I am very surprised that this got through the tactics committee, because what we have seen in these last days from the opposition's economic team is completely embarrassing. They are a circus over there. One wonders what Senator Sinodinos must be thinking as he watches my counterpart, Mr Robb, say, 'We can't even say we'll come back to surplus, were we elected, in our first term.' He could not even indicate they would come back to surplus by 2017. Mr Hockey today was again all over the place. Remember, Mr Hockey used to say you would come back to surplus earlier. Now you do not even know when you would. (Time expired)

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that the budget delivered in May last year forecast a $22 billion deficit, yet by November the MYEFO forecast had blown out to a $37 billion deficit, an upward variation of 68 per cent in just six months, how can the public be expected to rely on the accuracy of any budget forecast made by this government?

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind honourable senators on my right that the time to debate these issues is at the end of question time.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brandis asked me about the mid-year review, and he might recall, if he actually read it, that what that showed was $5 billion less in tax receipts than we anticipated because of what was occurring in the global economy. It also showed that we had to pay $2.3 billion more for natural disasters, and I would have thought that would not have been an expenditure that would be controversial in any debate in this parliament.

But, if those opposite want to talk about numbers, I suggest they have a look at the $70 billion that they have to find in the budget just to get to the starting line. Their backbench may not know this, but $70 billion is the equivalent of Medicare payments for four years. They are the sorts of cuts you have to find because of your lack of discipline. It is equivalent to two years of the age pension. That is the sort of cut you would have to find because of your lack of discipline. (Time expired)

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I take it from the minister's answer that she concedes the public cannot be confident. Given that the outlook of the Australian economy is becoming increasingly insecure as the result of the policies and performance of her government, with slower than expected growth, weak retail trade, falling property prices and low business confidence, isn't now the worst possible time to impose the world's biggest carbon tax that will drive up the cost of everything?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When it comes to the economy, we know the opposition only have two things that they can talk about: one is the $70 billion of cuts that they do not want to talk about and, of course, the other is the carbon price. When you manage the economy you do have to make choices. You have to make decisions about what is in the best interests of the nation. We have made our decisions very clear. We do believe in spreading the benefits of the boom to all Australians. We do believe in supporting jobs. We do believe in moving to a clean energy future because we know a first-rate economy has to deal with the issue of climate change and reduce our pollution. The priorities of those opposite are demonstrated by the fact that they put the profits of wealthy miners above the interests of working families and small business. Remember, it is this side of the parliament that wants to give small business a tax cut. The only tax cuts those opposite want to give are for the wealthy mining companies.