Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of all answers to opposition questions in question time today.

In my contribution on this motion, I want to focus on Senator Abetz's answer to my question in relation to the budget. For weeks now, we have seen Mr Abbott and Mr Hockey bullying the Senate over the budget. They have insisted that the Senate must roll over and support their budget of broken promises. They have demanded that the Senate go along with their cuts to schools, their cuts to hospitals. They demanded that the Senate pass their new GP tax, pass their tax hikes on petrol, pass their cuts to pensions and pass their cuts to the benefits for the most vulnerable people in our community.

This government, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer have abused Labor for having the temerity to stand up for low- and middle-income Australians. They have abused Labor for defending this chamber's role as a house of review. They have demanded instead that the Senate act as a rubber-stamp. After all this bullying and blustering, what happened when the government's very first budget came on for debate in this place? The first government speaker stood up and opposed the bill. The first government speaker on the first budget bill of the first budget of this government, stood up and opposed the bill. In fact, Senator Macdonald not only opposed the bill but also had a spray against the Prime Minister's paid parental leave scheme for millionaires.

The second government speaker in this debate, Senator Bernardi, stood up and also opposed the government's bill. Senator Bernardi Senator Bernardi said:

I regret that this my first opportunity to have a conversation about these tax rates with members of my own party, but on principle I simply am unable to support this.

It is now five weeks since the budget and Senator Bernardi, a prominent government backbencher, has not even been able to have a conversation with Prime Minister, the Treasurer or Senator Cormann about his concerns. In fact, we had to wait until the seventh speaker in the debate before this government could find one of its own senators who was willing to support the bill. It was the seventh speaker in the debate before there was a government senator prepared to stand up and support the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014. Congratulations to Senator Boyce for towing the line. The fact that it took seven speakers before a government senator spoke in favour of this budget bill says it all. It is not only Labor standing up against the government's broken promises; now the government's own backbenchers are breaking ranks over this unfair budget.

This morning's events must be unprecedented in recent Australian political history because the first government senators to speak on the first budget bill broke ranks. What I say is this: they did so because they know this is a budget littered with broken promises. It is a bad budget, it is an unfair budget and it is a budget littered with broken promises. If the government's own backbenchers will not support Mr Abbott's budget, why should the Australian people? If the government's own backbenchers do not trust the Prime Minister, why should the Australian people trust him? Because what we saw today from the government's own backbenchers is that they do not trust this Prime Minister's judgement. And if they will not, why should the Australian people? We know from the broken promises in this budget that this is a government that treats the Australian people with contempt. We also know that it treats its own backbenchers with contempt, in light of Senator Bernardi's contribution to this chamber that he had not had the opportunity to raise his concerns previously about the tax measures the Senate was discussing.

Let us recall who Senator Bernardi is. He is one of the leading figures in the Liberal Party's hard-line conservative faction. He was a key player in bringing down Malcolm Turnbull and installing Mr Abbott as Liberal leader in 2009, and he was Mr Abbott's own parliamentary secretary in opposition. Yet now it appears the door has been slammed in his face.

This is a government that cannot even organise government speakers on its first budget bill to support the government. It is a government with a budget in disarray, and the reason this budget is unravelling before our eyes is because it is deeply unfair. Let us remember that this budget is deeply unfair. It will change Australian society for the worse because it is a fundamental breach of faith with the Australian people. (Time expired)

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What hypocrisy from Senator Wong, after you as finance minister contributed so much to the six years of chaos, waste and mismanagement which delivered higher taxes, record boat arrivals and debt and deficit as far as the eye could see. There was $50 billion in the bank when we left office, and you managed to turn $50 billion into a projected net debt well over $200 billion, the fastest deterioration in debt in dollar terms and as a share of gross domestic product in modern Australian history.

Senator Conroy interjecting—

We hear Senator Conroy over there, the architect of the NBN on the back of a coaster—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are financially illiterate!

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the degree of financial mismanagement that those opposite left us with.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are spending $40 billion—

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your debt, Senator Conroy, may I remind you—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are spending $40 billion—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left! Senator Conroy, order!

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your legacy to the children and the grandchildren of Australia is a debt that is already costing us $1 billion a month in net interest payments. And that is on borrowed money. That is like paying the mortgage on your credit card and then borrowing a bit more to pay the interest. That is precisely what we are doing. No country can continue in this way, as I said, paying the mortgage on the credit card.

What else was your legacy, Senator Conroy—jobless queues that grew with over 200,000 people unemployed, in stark contrast to the record of the Howard years of 250,000 jobs. There were than 50,000 illegal maritime arrivals on your watch, which created a budget blow-out of almost $12 billion.

We did not cause the problems, but we will be fixing the problems. We were elected to fix the problem, and fix it we will. This is why this budget reduces our projected maximum debt by almost $300 billion. We will take the projected deficit in 2017-18 from about $30 billion to under $3 billion within sight of surplus.

And on the question of surplus, your 500 broken promises—remember, Labor guaranteed over 500 times that they would return the budget to surplus. You do not even know how to spell 'surplus' let alone deliver one. It has been a very, very long time in this country since those opposite delivered a surplus to the Australian people.

So we will take the projected deficit and bring it within sight of surplus. Our promise to the Australian public when we were elected last year was to build a stronger economy so that everyone can get ahead. We would be doing so by abolishing taxes, starting with the carbon tax. So I say to those opposite: respect the mandate that the Australian public gave the coalition government to repeal the carbon tax that is costing households $550 a year. But you just don't get it. We went through an election and yet you sit there opposite and still obstruct our plan to repeal the carbon tax.

I say to those opposite: we were elected to fix the budget, and fix the budget we will. We will end the waste. We are stopping the boats and we are building the roads of the 21st century. But predominantly, unless you have a strong economy, then you do not have the social dividend that that brings, and just like households across Australia have to live within their means, so too will this government live within its means.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take part in this debate, taking note of all answers given by the minister to questions from the opposition. Firstly, I just want to address some of the contribution from the Minister for Defence, the Honourable David Johnston—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a South Australian, you should!

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely, Senator Conroy. I was absolutely flabbergasted. I am on the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. There was an ANAO report on productivity and in direct questioning I said, 'Does this mean that the workers on the project have taken the money and not done the work?' 'No, Senator, it doesn't mean that at all. It means that there has been considerable redesign and that the work has been done three times.' So this focus on productivity should not at the workers' site in Adelaide; it should be a bit further up the food chain. Maybe it should be the people in Defence who have not done their job properly and have contributed to loss of productivity. Maybe there are those in the minister's office who have not done their job properly. But the workers in Adelaide clearly have been productive and efficient. It has been redesigned coming out of Spain and that has caused this loss in productivity. But I do not want to dwell on that. I just wanted to put that on the record.

But let us very clear about the debate before the Senate this morning and the astounding contributions from Senator Bernardi and Senator Macdonald. In your absence, Mr Deputy President, I was in the chair for both of those contributions, and I think it is a little rich of Senator Fierravanti-Wells, when she cannot convince her own side of the merit of her argument, to come in here and try to lambast us in the opposition. Very clearly, there are a lot of people who are extremely concerned at this budget that I have had the opportunity of speaking to like pensioners who are appalled at the changes; motorists—in fact, anybody who drives a car, particularly those in regional Australia—are incensed at this impost that has been brought in. The sick and elderly who rely on medical services on a very frequent basis—weekly, fortnightly. This morning I received a contribution from a doctor who looks after an aged-care facility. He tells me there is not a great percentage of doctors who even practise in the aged-care system. A lot of that has been left to particular GPs, and they do not have the wherewithal and are not going to be able to say to people in aged-care facilities 'you cannot have your weekly doctor's visit unless you have $7.00'. They are very upset about that.

Then there is the family tax benefit. Despite the fact that they cannot win over Senator MacDonald, Senator Bernardi and a whole cohort of Nationals, particularly with respect to the fuel excise payments—the parental leave scheme has caused tremendous dissent. Senator MacDonald was quite right: on one hand you want lower company taxes, so we are going to give them a one-and-a-half per cent tax cut, and I support that. On the other hand, you are going to give them a 1½ per cent levy for the paid parental leave scheme. A very confusing message and not easy to sell unless you put up a great big barrage of debt, debt, debt; crisis, crisis, crisis. Let's frighten the punters into thinking they have to fundamentally change the way Australia operates. We have had Medicare operating very, very well, and it is not a question of a $7.00 copayment; there are probably plenty of people in the community who can pay $7.00. It is about the principle of universal free health care in this country, which has been around for a very long time and in my view should stay. When you start tinkering at the edges, it is the people at the lower end who always feel that in a very demonstrable and unconscionable way. When I asked if they had done any modelling in senate estimates about the capacity of people to pay the $7.00—people who may have a mental illness or a history of mental illness who need regular visits to their practitioner—did you do any studying or modelling on that? 'No, we didn't; we just brought it in'; was the answer. We are just going to bring it in and fit people up with it.

But even that icon of conservatism, Mr John Howard, has a bit to say. Family tax benefits are not welfare payments—they are tax breaks. So you can only draw the conclusion from that that this government has added a new tax on families by taking away the family tax benefits. It is actually a new tax, something they promised they would never do.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Really, the surprise is that you should be surprised that people might be upset about some of the budget measures. And if you are surprised that people are surprised or upset about the budget measures, then that says one thing very, very clearly: that you do not think there is a problem. Australians fall into two camps at the moment—there is the camp that does not think there is a budget problem, represented by those people on that side of the chamber; then there are those of us on this side of the chamber, who do believe we have a budget problem. I understand completely. If people do not want to believe me—

Senator Conroy interjecting—

if people do not want to believe Senator Conroy and Labor senators—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left! Order!

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Get Henry Ergas out!

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will get Phil Bowen, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, out—remembering, of course, that the Parliamentary Budget Office was established under Labor and the Greens. So what did the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer say when he was asked by a senator—it happened to be me—about very revealing—

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Senator Conroy, do you remember what Mr Bowen said? No—Senator Conroy would not remember what Mr Bowen said. Mr Bowen said that Australia's debt is increasing at the fastest rate of any OECD country.

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Conroy!

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And he stressed the need to reduce that debt to provide ourselves with a buffer against unexpected international economic—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy—order, Senator Smith.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why don't we go—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, that has been pretty continuous; your interjections are robust and very loud. Senator Smith is entitled to be heard in silence.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take it as a compliment that Senator Conroy should try that I not be heard. Let's have a look at what the International Monetary Fund had to say—not Senator Conroy, not Senator Smith; but what the International Monetary Fund had to say when it looked at our budget. It had to say:

The government's aim to return the budget to surplus in the coming years will help rebuild fiscal buffers and increase the policy scope to deal with adverse shocks, but will be challenging in light of current social spending commitments. Cuts in projected spending and/or increased revenues are likely to be needed, and early decisions on policy changes required would help preserve policy flexibility.

There is an element of this debate that has been missing for a long time. Australians know that the strong budget position that was left by the Howard government meant the next government could meet the challenges of the global financial crisis well. What we do not know is what economic calamity is around the corner. We do not know what the future looks like except that we do not have the capacity any more to respond to any economic calamity. That is a risk that this government thinks is too great to let go unaddressed. Let's have a look at what the secretary of the Treasury, Dr Parkinson, had to say. Senator Conroy, do you recall what Dr Parkinson had to say? No; Senator Conroy would want to erase it from his memory. On the need to reduce debt, Dr Parkinson told estimates:

I have been saying this. The Governor of the Reserve Bank has been saying this. The head of the independent Parliamentary Budget Office has said this, most recently last week. If the two most senior economic bureaucrats in the country are saying, 'People, we have a challenge, and it's about time we had a serious community discussion' and the independent head of the Parliamentary Budget Office says the same thing, it is actually in the hands of the political class.

So what the secretary of the Treasury means is that it is up to me; it is up to Senator Abetz, it is up to Senator Kroger, and—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Smith, I have to interrupt the debate now. The Senate will suspend until 5:30 pm to enable the presentation of the address-in-reply to His Excellency the Governor General at Government House.

Sitting suspended from 15 : 30 to 17 : 30