Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked by Senators Brandis, Cormann and Edwards today.

It was interesting today—and I think it frames it—when Senator Ludwig stated, 'We're committed to a low-carbon economy.' He stated this with all the enthusiasm of a bereaved pensioner at the loss of their dearly loved pet. We slowly see every piece and everything that was formerly a structure of what was the Labor Party's raison d'etre—the reason for them to govern—taken away.

We had the carbon price. First of all, the carbon price started, and Senator Wong was crucial in this, because it was a big thing that the Labor Party Left were fighting for. It started as 'the greatest moral challenge of our time', and then all of a sudden one day we had the famous interview with the Prime Minister. We had had the former Prime Minister, and they dispensed with him and then got themselves a new Prime Minister, Prime Minister Gillard. We had the famous interview on the Brisbane River, where she said, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' We all thought that that meant that there would be no carbon tax, so the greatest moral challenge of our time had become not a challenge at all—in fact, not even worth mentioning.

Then we had the thing called the election, at which point in time we thought that she would keep to her promise, but of course she did not; she met the Greens. The Greens trusted her to change her stated position, to change her word and to dispense with her word, and all of a sudden the carbon tax was back on the agenda. Then it was the greatest moral challenge of our time again. In fact, they locked it in and they were never going to change it. It was never, ever going to be amended, changed or affected in any way, shape or form. It was locked in. It was guaranteed. It was cast iron. It was not going anywhere—until last week. Then it started going somewhere. They started removing it. All of a sudden the greatest moral challenge of our time became the greatest moral challenge of our time when you take into account the European scheme. So all of a sudden it is a complete change of position. Of course, that meant all their budgetary figures had completely fallen over, so it was very apt that Senator Wong, who was also supposed to be the finance minister, had completely stepped away from one of the main planks of her forward budget position.

This went hand in glove with the brown coal position. Brown coal used to be this filthy, dirty, naughty, immoral rock. A terrible rock was brown coal. It had to be dispensed with. It had to be removed from the face of the planet. We certainly could not have brown coal generating electricity. It was just out of the ballpark. We just could not have it—until last week. Now brown coal, with the maintaining of Hazelwood, is a noble, righteous, life-giving rock. It has changed position. The moral impediment of brown coal has now changed, because everything changes with the Labor Party. You cannot believe anything—just like Senator Chris Evans's position that the Pacific solution was a disgrace, and now it is a key plank of their immigration policy.

And then we have Senator Penny Wong. She was the climate change minister. Then she was jettisoned from that and became the Minister for Finance and responsible for climate change. Now she is not even that. She does not even want to mention it. She cannot mention the phrase 'climate change' now. Could it be that there is something going on in the Labor left? Could it be maybe a sense that they have no soul—a sense that everything they have been associated with they have basically dispensed with, that they are not prepared to stand by anything anymore because they do not have any ticker? There is nothing there. They are vacuous.

And we have budget honesty. What a joke! Where do we start? Do we start with the first debt ceiling of $75 billion or do we move to the next one, where Treasurer Wayne Maxwell Swan announced in 2008 that they would have a temporary limit of $200 billion? Or do you talk about the time they went straight through that to a permanent extension of a quarter of a trillion dollars? Or do we talk about the latest manifestation: the $300 billion debt ceiling. Or do we talk about the fact that they said they would never go near the quarter-trillion limit but now in questions on notice it has come back that they go right up to it? There is nothing. Now do we talk about the $120 billion black hole?

It does not matter how many tosses and turns they have; the one thing they cannot lie about—the one thing they cannot change—is the absolute paucity of economic credentials and the massive debt that this crowd has got us into.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a bit rich to be lectured by Senator Joyce and the coalition on either climate change or economics. It is even richer to be lectured on economics by Senator Joyce, the shortest-serving shadow finance minister in the history of this parliament. How long did he last? Not very long. The Leader of the Opposition actually put him in there because he was supposed to be a great retail politician. I am not sure about the argument of being a great retail politician. He certainly is not an economist. He certainly has no capacity to deal in a rational way with the economic issues important to this country.

You only have to look at Senator Joyce last week, out there trying to oppose foreign investment in the farming sector of this country—opposing foreign investment in a farm that was in liquidation. Senator Joyce has absolutely no credibility when he stands up here and talks about economic issues, and I have to say neither has the coalition. We heard these arguments on economics today, but you only have to go back to the failed economics of the Howard government.

The Howard government were absolute economic vandals. They presided over one of the biggest boom periods this country has ever enjoyed. The money was flowing into that government hand over fist, so what did they do? It was tax cut after tax cut with absolutely no strategy, no economic basis—

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We had a surplus—a smaller boom and a surplus!

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take the interjection about a surplus. It was like winning the pools: the money was flowing in. You have to have money in the bank when you win the pools. It is not about economic credibility. It is not about a surplus when you win the pools. The money was flying in hand over fist, and all you guys did was let money flow out as quickly as ever.

You just have to look at Peter Costello, whom you worked for, Senator Fifield. Peter Costello did not have the backbone or credibility within the coalition to actually stand up to John Howard on what he thought was the right thing to do: to stop that tsunami of spending that took place.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What have you done?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that interjection as well. What have we done? We kept this country out of a recession because of the global financial crisis. That is what we did. You did not face a global financial crisis. It has been wiped off the history of the country by the coalition as if the global financial crisis never happened.

We actually did something for the country. What you did was for your political position and trying to win votes. Even Senator Sinodinos accepts that. Senator Sinodinos was there when he called it 'a lucky dip'. The budget was a lucky dip under the coalition. It was about 'What can we dole out to what group who might vote for us?' It was not about economic credibility, and I always have a bit of a laugh when I hear them standing up here trying to defend the economic position of the Howard government.

You were economic incompetents. You were an economic rabble. You did nothing to build the future of this country. You did nothing for public schools in this country. The state school system was ignored. You did nothing on climate change even though you were supposed to be doing something, even though all the evidence before you was that something had to be done. For pure political reasons you did not deal with the big challenges for this nation. Why? Because you are economic incompetents and political pariahs in this country. That is what the coalition are. You have not got an economic brain in your head, so don't lecture us about economics. You were a failed government on economics. The history of this nation will make it clear you were economic failures.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

God love Senator Cameron; he is one of our greatest electoral assets! But I too rise to speak to the motion of Senator Joyce in relation to answers from Senator Wong. We did ask Senator Wong questions today about tax treatment of superannuation income, the fiscal impact of abandoning the carbon tax floor price and Gonski and how it will be funded. We did not get any answers—no surprise there—but the reason we asked these questions is to point out the fact that this government's fiscal strategy is in tatters. That is nothing new; it always has been since almost day one.

You will know, Madam Acting Deputy President Moore, that this government have not delivered a single budget surplus—not one; not a single one. Listening to Senator Cameron, you would have thought they were paragons of economic and fiscal virtue, but this is not the case. What we hear, and Senator Cameron alluded to it, is that this government have had a lot of bad luck. Bad luck after bad luck; it is always circumstances beyond their control. They are the unluckiest outfit you have ever come across. And what we hear them say time and again is that the reason the budget is in deficit is because of revenue write-downs: 'It's not our fault. The world's a hairy place. Economic growth comes off in the region and around the world, and now revenues fall and that's just the way it is.' That is absolute rubbish. If you look at the budget papers, the overwhelming reason why the budget has been in deficit year after year, each and every year of this government, is due to policy decision. And by policy decisions, I mean decisions to spend money. Yes, there may have been some revenue write-downs, but that is not the reason why this budget is in deficit and every previous Labor budget has been in deficit.

This government has not leant its lessons, which leads me to the $120 billion black hole that this government has from things like the dental program, Gonski, NDIS, border protection. We are seeing a pattern here where the government will have a grand announcement, there will be a little bit of detail—I will not say no detail, but a little bit of detail—there will often be a small amount of money and then there will be an attempt to demonise the states. It will pick a fight with the states to say that they are the ones in the way of reform. It then follows all of that up with a symbolic piece of legislation. In the case of Gonski, as far as we can tell, the legislation will essentially say it is a good thing if kids get a good education. As far as we know that is all that the legislation being introduced will say in relation to Gonski.

The whole purpose is to give the illusion of activity, just enough money and just enough detail to try to convince people of the government's bona fides. But the reality is that this government does not have the intention to follow through. For me, it is particularly disappointing in the case of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I have to say I had actually believed that the government was genuine about introducing and fully funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I had believed that, and I have worked harder than just about anyone to look for the positives in relation to this government and a National Disability Insurance Scheme. There was only one-quarter of the funding in the last budget that the Productivity Commission said was necessary over the forward estimates to complete the first phase of the NDIS, which caused me concern. The Prime Minister picking a fight with the states rather than having a cooperative attitude caused me concern. But for me the cock crowed a third time when the Prime Minister completely failed to accept our offer of a joint parliamentary committee to oversight the implementation of the NDIS. That is when I decided that this government was not serious. And now, confirming that view that I have, is Gonski and dental. I fear the NDIS may come a distant second or third to Gonski or dental. I expected better, and I do hope that the government will change its stance.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to take note of answers given by Senator Wong today. There were quite a few questions to Senator Wong. In fact, I think Senator Wong probably gets the most questions at any one time, and I have to say I think she does a great job in setting out the facts and letting those on the other side know what irrelevant types of questions they ask us. They actually waste a lot of time in this chamber.

Some of the things that were talked about today—Senator Fifield was just talking about Gonski. You would have to be pretty naive not to realise that at least one person on the other side in the other place has done a complete backflip in respect of Gonski—that is, Mr Pyne. Mr Pyne has led the opposition down the track so that its education policy is now in tatters. He has isolated himself from the states and the majority of education stakeholders, and he has been forced into a humiliating backdown in respect of his earlier position on education funding reform.

What I am referring to is his interview on Insiders that I watched on Sunday morning. What that actually said to the people of Australia was that the opposition have got no clear plan to improve Australia's educational outcomes. They have not supported, for example, the BER project, which has been so important to so many schools—in fact to every school—throughout Australia. In Tasmania we have heard about some other states having a few problems with the BER. Of course when you are doing a major rebuild and building so much major infrastructure in a set time frame, nothing is ever perfect. We have acknowledged that on this side. But in Tasmania, there is not a school I go to that does not speak highly of the BER—including last week when I was up at Yolla District High School in north-west Tasmania having a look at their facilities. It is a great school and the students are great. I was there with some of my Tasmanian Labor colleagues from the Senate. The school could not speak more highly of the money that this government had spent in the BER. Let it be on the heads of those Tasmanian senators opposite, when it comes to election time, that the people of Tasmania are very clear to us about that.

Another thing that was mentioned during question time was the economy. If we have a look at the national accounts figures from last week, it gives us time to pause and reflect on our remarkable economic performance, particularly in the four years since the global financial crisis. They are a bit of a reminder to us that, even in the face of many challenges, we should never lose sight of our strong fundamentals, the resilience of our workers and businesses and our proven track record in dealing with global instability. The Australian economy grew faster than that of every single major advanced economy, both in the June quarter and over the year to June.

It was particularly pleasing to see that that growth was based broadly around households. Household consumption rose, and was supported by low unemployment and rising incomes even though global turbulence is continuing. We are quite aware that that does weigh on consumer confidence. New business investment climbed, hitting a 40-year high as a share of GDP, as companies continued to invest in the future. New engineering construction reached a record high, with overall engineering construction 60 per cent higher over the year. Public spending increased, underpinned by investment in rail and energy infrastructure, and the rollout of the National Broadband Network—again, another great initiative by this government and one that the Tasmanian people just cannot get quickly enough. We have people ringing to say: 'When can we get on board? When does our turn come up? How can we get it?' It is not just Tasmanians but the whole population of Australia who understand the importance of making sure that we are moving forward and keeping up with the rest of the world, that we are able to communicate. (Time expired)

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise also to take notice of answers given by Senator Wong to questions asked by Senators Brandis, Cormann and Edwards. I noted that, in her opening comments, Senator Wong studiously avoided answering any of those questions. She went right out of her way to avoid ruling out changes to superannuation that would disadvantage holders of superannuation accounts across the country. Similarly, she avoided any semblance of an answer to the issue of the impact on the budget of scrapping the carbon tax floor price. When Senator Edwards asked her about industry closures in South Australia, there was, once again, no substance whatsoever to her answers.

This is typical of the lack of transparency that is endemic in this government. They were elected in 2007 on the basis of something that I believe was called Operation Sunshine, which was apparently going to open the blinds and allow sunshine into the operations of the government. Five years later, we are yet to see even a little peek of sunlight coming in through the window. To the contrary, I think it has become noticeably darker in government since 2007. The government have become masters at trying to put forward ideas without actually giving any details or putting forward ideas that are not being funded, and I will get into that a little more in a minute, with a view to trying, as Senator Fifield put forward much more eloquently than I would ever be able, to create the impression that they are taking action on these issues. There is just enough information and just enough money to make it look like there is a possibility that they are taking some action but, in reality, there is no substance behind it and there is no money behind it.

It is highlighted by the fact that this nation is currently facing a $120 billion black hole as the government of the day, this Labor Gillard government, makes promise after promise of these massive and hugely costly programs that it will put in place—things like the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the Gonski educational changes. There is also the new-fangled dental scheme that will deal with the dental needs of millions of Australians, which I think is a particularly cruel one. There are Australians right across the country who have very urgent and painful dental needs that need to be addressed. We do need to work out how to deal with that. The Howard government put in place through the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme a very appropriate and well-funded way of doing so, but that scheme is going to be scrapped. The government is now promising a new dental scheme which will not come into effect for some years and, in the interim, there is nothing for those people who need urgent dental care. The reality is that there is no funding for the scheme when it is due to come in in any event.

Senator Cameron entertained us with his standard fare, where he plays the man. He attacked Senator Joyce and spent some time getting stuck into him. Senator Joyce has a far better understanding of the welfare and needs of ordinary Australians out there across the country than Senator Cameron will ever have. Then he played the second of his standard tricks, which is to attack the economic record of the Howard government. He takes a very selective focus and ignores all the major economic indicators that matter to the welfare of Australians, such as fiscal responsibility and employment rates. Senator Abetz is in the chamber and, as the shadow minister for industrial relations, can attest to the fact that we had record low unemployment rates during the Howard years. Senator Cameron ignores the fact that real spending on health and education rose massively in the Howard years but has not continued to do so. There is the tax reform undertaken during the Howard years, the tax cuts that were provided to people across the income spectrum, and the environmental challenges that were addressed through initiatives such as Green Corps and Landcare. I ask Senator Cameron whether he recalls when the four biggest surpluses in this country were delivered. If he actually goes to the trouble of having a look, he will find that the answer is that they were in the last four years of the Howard government. In fact, when were the four biggest deficits that this country has ever seen? The answer is that they were in the first four budgets of this Labor government. I suspect that, when the numbers come in for the year that has just ended, we will probably find that it is the fifth biggest surplus—amongst the five biggest surpluses; it may well be higher than five.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deficits.

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry; yes, deficits. Senator Fifield is right: the deficits they have achieved have been all about their spending decisions not about revenue. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.